Supercharger for the Roadster (Elon said "No")

[Raffy.Roma]

The fox might have jumped higher if he believed he might actually get some delicious grapes, but instead he said they were sour and walked away (AESOP).
Are we willing as a group to look to jump higher and get our flagship vehicles upgraded with the support implied, or are we calling upgrades a bunch of sour grapes.

I have always aspired to higher levels, and I was clear in stating that I am more than willing to pay heavily for such an upgrade.

What I feel is a bunch of people saying "no we can't get Tesla to agree", rather than people willing to say "let's ask as a group and show unity and interest".

The PR value for TESLA would be priceless.

This ^_^

@TOBASH

I like your "believer" attitude.

- - - Updated - - -

There are maybe 1,400 roadsters in the USA. Tesla sells that many Model S's in a week.

Of those 1,400, how many would want even SuperCharger access? Of those, how many would pay for it? How much would they pay?

The general consensus here is that SuperCharger access would require a PEM upgrade, along with a cooling upgrade. How much R&D would that take? How much in parts and labor on each car? If 20% of owners would pay for the upgrade, I'd guess it would be somewhere in the $25,000 range. Would you pay that for supercharger access?

Don't agree. Sometimes things are not a matter of money IMO. Expecially when it comes to PR issues.

 

[Doug_G]

Supporting a Roadster battery upgrade with Supercharging therefore makes even more sense, as why limit Roadster use? Proving they are willing to make upgrades to allow use on par with current models is exactly the kind of support they implied back then and we are discussing now.

At what cost? What percentage of Roadster owners would be willing to spend $40k to upgrade their cars? Personally I'd wait and put that money into the next generation Roadster instead - or maybe the Model 3 (Roadster owners are a mixed bag - some bought it because it was the only fully capable EV at the time, others wanted a sports car).

And that's just the cost to the customer. It says nothing about the engineering costs of designing major changes to the vehicle.

I find your argument therefore does not entirely hold. Supporting the pack also means upgrading to make it 100% compatible with evolved technologies.

The pack can easily be made 100% compatible with Supercharging (well it will take some work - worst case a cooling system upgrade). It's the rest of the car that is the problem. Power electronics. Wiring. Communications with the Supercharger. There's no direct charger bypass contactor like on the Model S. The Roadster would need massive changes, and there isn't a lot of room to put all that stuff either.

Tesla needs to prove commitment over and above all other companies, including a commitment of putting R&D into old and new products alike.

I don't think anyone really expects upgrades on obsolete, older products. In any industry; especially not the automotive industry. The reason they're bringing out a longer range pack is because that is the easiest thing they can possibly do. They maintain the exact same pack architecture as now - same number of cells mounted the same way - and get long range just because they're more modern cells. No major engineering effort; they just have to adjust the electronics in the pack to accommodate the different chemistry. Will need firmware changes for sure; might not even need hardware changes, or at most relatively minor hardware changes.

The bigger issue is the engineering costs, and distraction of engineering resources away from Model S/X/3/...

Elon wants cars that are not disposable. Tesla therefore needs to upgrade all cars to equal footing.

They want cars that are not disposable. That in no way means they have to all be upgraded to the same capability.

Again, this is not a challenge to you or your thoughts.

Yes, it is definitely a challenge to my ideas. Whether that is a challenge to me or not is a matter of opinion.

Elon and Tesla say that want to show support to old and true support requires true upgrades. I would prefer 250 miles with Supercharging over 400 miles and slow as hell charging any day. 400 miles is between 6 and 8 hours driving. I drive up to 18 hours at a stretch. That would require either a 1000 mile battery or supercharging to place me on par with Model S.

Again, they MUST do a replacement pack because they promised it, and because that is the absolute minimum they can do to support the Roadsters long-term. The longer range is just a bonus from the improving battery chemistry.

Don't get me wrong. I'm new to this forum, and I don't want to make enemies. I love the roadster and the feel of raw power. It is just that as the son of a PE (professional engineer), and as former mechanic, and as a current surgeon I know that the things being cited as problems are surmountable and would prove to be HUGE public relations boosters.

Well if we're throwing qualifications around now, I'm an actual professional engineer (electrical), and a company owner. So I do know a little something about electronics design and about running a business.

 

[hcsharp]

...
I have always aspired to higher levels, and I was clear in stating that I am more than willing to pay heavily for such an upgrade.
...

I'm curious, how much would you be willing to pay for supercharging upgrade? Once I have a 400 mile battery I'm not sure I would pay a lot for SuperC. I suspect a lot of Roadster owners feel the same way. I don't think you'd get a lot of people lobbying Tesla for this once they have the large pack upgrade. I understand why you want it and I agree it would be nice but for the price Tesla would have to charge I just don't think they'd get many takers.

 

[Doug_G]

Higher amperage destination charging would be much more important.

It is very rare for me to drive > 600 km in a day. If I stop for a couple of hours for top-up I'd be able to do 800 km a day without a great deal of difficulty. That's a huge improvement over what I can do now with the Roadster, and pretty much all I'd ever need.

Reportedly Tesla is rolling out destination charging with the newer plug. A Model S to Roadster plug adapter is all I'd need. Supercharging would be very nice, but not essential and I certainly wouldn't be willing to spend > $10k for it.

 

[shrink]

The general consensus here is that SuperCharger access would require a PEM upgrade, along with a cooling upgrade.

Why would a PEM upgrade be needed? I imagine it would simply be bypassed. If they are going through the trouble of releasing a 400 mile battery, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to create an extra port on the battery for DC fast charging. Then wouldn't it be a matter of running one set of wires from what would have to be Model S/X/III charge port directly to the new battery and a separate set of wires to the existing PEM for L2 charging?

Cooling would definitely be a concern, though. I'm guessing the SuperCharging stations would require a software update to talk to the Roadster, read the battery temps, and send a signal to cool or shut down if it gets too hot or other adverse condition occurs.

Doesn't seem to be out of the realm. However, I'm not sure if the existing HVAC is capable of the required cooling, and I am certainly no engineer so I admittedly do not have a full understanding of what is required.

I have to admit, however, that I am hopeful the new battery pack will come with Supercharging, but I do not expect it.

I must further acknowledge some personal irrationality behind this hope, too. My wife and I have also been Model S owners for the past 2 months or so. We haven't used a Supercharger yet and don't have any existing driving trips planned in which we would need to use them.

 

[TOBASH]

I'm curious, how much would you be willing to pay for supercharging upgrade? Once I have a 400 mile battery I'm not sure I would pay a lot for SuperC. I suspect a lot of Roadster owners feel the same way. I don't think you'd get a lot of people lobbying Tesla for this once they have the large pack upgrade. I understand why you want it and I agree it would be nice but for the price Tesla would have to charge I just don't think they'd get many takers.

15-20k

- - - Updated - - -

At what cost? What percentage of Roadster owners would be willing to spend $40k to upgrade their cars? Personally I'd wait and put that money into the next generation Roadster instead - or maybe the Model 3 (Roadster owners are a mixed bag - some bought it because it was the only fully capable EV at the time, others wanted a sports car).

And that's just the cost to the customer. It says nothing about the engineering costs of designing major changes to the vehicle.



The pack can easily be made 100% compatible with Supercharging (well it will take some work - worst case a cooling system upgrade). It's the rest of the car that is the problem. Power electronics. Wiring. Communications with the Supercharger. There's no direct charger bypass contactor like on the Model S. The Roadster would need massive changes, and there isn't a lot of room to put all that stuff either.



I don't think anyone really expects upgrades on obsolete, older products. In any industry; especially not the automotive industry. The reason they're bringing out a longer range pack is because that is the easiest thing they can possibly do. They maintain the exact same pack architecture as now - same number of cells mounted the same way - and get long range just because they're more modern cells. No major engineering effort; they just have to adjust the electronics in the pack to accommodate the different chemistry. Will need firmware changes for sure; might not even need hardware changes, or at most relatively minor hardware changes.

The bigger issue is the engineering costs, and distraction of engineering resources away from Model S/X/3/...



They want cars that are not disposable. That in no way means they have to all be upgraded to the same capability.



Yes, it is definitely a challenge to my ideas. Whether that is a challenge to me or not is a matter of opinion.



Again, they MUST do a replacement pack because they promised it, and because that is the absolute minimum they can do to support the Roadsters long-term. The longer range is just a bonus from the improving battery chemistry.



Well if we're throwing qualifications around now, I'm an actual professional engineer (electrical), and a company owner. So I do know a little something about electronics design and about running a business.

As I said Doug, this is not meant as a personal attack, but you seem to have taken it that way. Unfortunate.

Take some of the room from a 400 mile battery and dedicate it to computer bypass that will allow supercharging. Then make it a 250 or 350 mile computer.

Run a slave computer to manage the supercharging in order to allow the battery to work with the car's existing computer. Software can allow both computers to communicate. Just one idea.

Again, this is not personal. Different people would like different things out of their car experience.

We all have differing perspectives. Please do not take offense.

Best,

T

 

[dhrivnak]

15-20k

- - - Updated - - -

Run a slave computer to manage the supercharging in order to allow the battery to work with the car's existing computer. Software can allow both computers to communicate. Just one idea.
T

A computer does not hack it. We are talking about serious power with supercharging 400V and 300 amps. That is more power than a large house. That takes BIG contacts and other parts.

As someone who has built EV's SuperCharging is not going to happen unless you are willing to step up and lay down 7 figures. A 400 mile pack is trivial in comparison.

 

[bonnie]

As I said Doug, this is not meant as a personal attack, but you seem to have taken it that way. Unfortunate.

Aw, c'mon. I've read through Doug's response twice and there is absolutely nothing in it that would lead me to believe he took it personally. He just responded factually. Why manipulate his response to make it sound emotional? That's unfair of you.

 

[Doug_G]

As I said Doug, this is not meant as a personal attack, but you seem to have taken it that way. Unfortunate.

No, I didn't. I have way too thick a skin to take offense from such a weak argument.

That said, meethinks thou dost protest too much. It seems to me by repeatedly claiming not to be making a personal attack, and somehow implying that I am taking it that way, you are trying to create controversy where there is none. That is trollish behavior. As a moderator I am going to be keeping your eye on you.

Take some of the room from a 400 mile battery and dedicate it to computer bypass that will allow supercharging. Then make it a 250 or 350 mile computer.

Run a slave computer to manage the supercharging in order to allow the battery to work with the car's existing computer. Software can allow both computers to communicate. Just one idea.

Again, this is not personal. Different people would like different things out of their car experience.

We all have differing perspectives. Please do not take offense.

Nowhere did I take anything personally. I simply disagreed with you, and you have not provided any convincing argument.

Can Tesla make the Roadster Supercharge? Of course they can, if they really want to. But it will take resources: engineers, prototypes, testing, money. They will not spend these resources on Roadster. They will devote them to future models.

As I said, the battery pack upgrade is necessary. That is the minimum and that is all they are likely to do.

 

[Canuck]

It is just that as the son of a PE (professional engineer), and as former mechanic, and as a current surgeon I know that the things being cited as problems are surmountable and would prove to be HUGE public relations boosters.

Can this be considered the reverse of an ad hominem argument? In any event, instead of pumping yourself up, it's probably best to let your arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Many engineer's sons, former mechanics, and surgeons, have been wrong.

No, I didn't. I have way too thick a skin to take offense from such a weak argument.

Possibly the best comeback I have read on this forum or all forums.

 

[MartinAustin]

Just a wild idea... the next-generation Roadster, whenever it comes out, will probably be the same approximate size as the current Roaster. Just because roadsters are around that size.

It is conceivable that Tesla could design the battery pack and supercharging componentry of the new Roadster so that some of the parts could be retrofitted into the old Roadster - in a very custom and very expensive process.

The battery pack of the new Roadster would probably have a larger range than the upcoming 400-mile battery.

Yes, a totally WILD idea.

 

[markwj]

It is conceivable that Tesla could design the battery pack and supercharging componentry of the new Roadster so that some of the parts could be retrofitted into the old Roadster - in a very custom and very expensive process.

I think that the battery-under-the-floor arrangement of Model S (and X) is so favourable that it will carry forward. It just makes so much sense (from a weight distribution, storage in the trunk, flat floor, etc, point of view).

 

[bonnie]

Just a wild idea... the next-generation Roadster, whenever it comes out, will probably be the same approximate size as the current Roaster. Just because roadsters are around that size.

It is conceivable that Tesla could design the battery pack and supercharging componentry of the new Roadster so that some of the parts could be retrofitted into the old Roadster - in a very custom and very expensive process.

The battery pack of the new Roadster would probably have a larger range than the upcoming 400-mile battery.

Yes, a totally WILD idea.

I think that the battery-under-the-floor arrangement of Model S (and X) is so favourable that it will carry forward. It just makes so much sense (from a weight distribution, storage in the trunk, flat floor, etc, point of view).

The stated design goals are to continue to build off the Gen 2 (Model S, Model X) and Gen 3 (Model 3, Roadster) platforms, to drive both design reusability and factory efficiency. Designing the next gen Roadster to be backwards compatible would be a step backwards, imo, and would not serve the future of the company. It would be totally disruptive to the line, would probably mess with timelines, etc. No bueno.

 

[supersnoop]

Don't agree. Sometimes things are not a matter of money IMO. Expecially when it comes to PR issues.

The PR value for TESLA would be priceless.

As Tesla Roadster owners, I think we all greatly overestimate the PR value of the Roadster. Just google "Tesla Marketing Budget." Almost nobody on the road has any idea what it is. Half of the people who stop me say, "I didn't know they were making a sports car, I've only seen the bigger one." Some of those people have even done test drives of the Model S.

Can they do it? Yes.
Would I like them to? Absolutely!
Should they? No.
Will they? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Doug_G]

Tesla has pretty much scrubbed the Roadster from their web site. Many Model S owners don't even know it exists. PR value is minor at this point.

If they left people high and dry without battery packs, though, that would create very negative PR - people would point to it as evidence that Tesla will abandon the Model S owners when their cars go out of warranty. There are all kinds of FUD spreaders who would love that. Now Tesla can point to it and say, "look, the technology gets better!"

Since the original cells are no longer available Tesla has to switch to new cells, and the minimum effort is to keep everything the same but put in new cells. So the pack gets more range by default, because it's the least effort. They get to reap a small bit of positive PR by extolling the added range, but that's a convenient side-effect, not the reason for doing it.

To me this is evidence that Tesla only wants to do the bare minimum necessary. Which makes complete sense from a business perspective. They need to look forward, not back.

 

[bonnie]

As Tesla Roadster owners, I think we all greatly overestimate the PR value of the Roadster. Just google "Tesla Marketing Budget." Almost nobody on the road has any idea what it is. Half of the people who stop me say, "I didn't know they were making a sports car, I've only seen the bigger one." Some of those people have even done test drives of the Model S.

I know, right? "This is a Tesla? I thought they only made sedans. When did these come out?" Even worse when it's a Model S owner asking.

Tesla has pretty much scrubbed the Roadster from their web site. Many Model S owners don't even know it exists. PR value is minor at this point.

If they left people high and dry without battery packs, though, that would create very negative PR - people would point to it as evidence that Tesla will abandon the Model S owners when their cars go out of warranty. There are all kinds of FUD spreaders who would love that. Now Tesla can point to it and say, "look, the technology gets better!"

Since the original cells are no longer available Tesla has to switch to new cells, and the minimum effort is to keep everything the same but put in new cells. So the pack gets more range by default, because it's the least effort. They get to reap a small bit of positive PR by extolling the added range, but that's a convenient side-effect, not the reason for doing it.

To me this is evidence that Tesla only wants to do the bare minimum necessary. Which makes complete sense from a business perspective. They need to look forward, not back.

Agree 100%. (I'd agree more, but then it's just wasting percentage points.)

- - - Updated - - -

There is far more PR value at getting the X out or progress on Model 3 than there is in supplying supercharging for the Roadster. Don't forget that 1) a lot of people don't even know (or care) about superchargers, and 2) of those that do, a large percentage already assume that Roadsters can also charge there (including a few Roadster owners I've run into). It's just a nonsensical argument when Tesla is not even needing a PR win - and this most certainly would not be it if they did.

All that said, doing something just for the PR value when the majority of owners aren't asking for it seems like a waste of company money. For those of you who are new here or don't have any skin in the game ... what we HAVE consistently asked for since the supercharger network started being built is a 70amp HPC over on the side of each Supercharger installation (and haven't received, btw). And there hasn't been any negative blowback over that from a PR standpoint.

From my viewpoint, even better than supercharging, is the 400 mile (give or take) battery pack. I'm happy with that and I'm not inclined to go petition for more. Why? Simply because 1) I have no need for it with expanded battery range, and 2) I don't want future progress stalled by taking that detour. My investment dollars matter to me, too.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Tesla has pretty much scrubbed the Roadster from their web site. Many Model S owners don't even know it exists. PR value is minor at this point.

If they left people high and dry without battery packs, though, that would create very negative PR - people would point to it as evidence that Tesla will abandon the Model S owners when their cars go out of warranty. There are all kinds of FUD spreaders who would love that. Now Tesla can point to it and say, "look, the technology gets better!"

Since the original cells are no longer available Tesla has to switch to new cells, and the minimum effort is to keep everything the same but put in new cells. So the pack gets more range by default, because it's the least effort. They get to reap a small bit of positive PR by extolling the added range, but that's a convenient side-effect, not the reason for doing it.

To me this is evidence that Tesla only wants to do the bare minimum necessary. Which makes complete sense from a business perspective. They need to look forward, not back.

It's also far better than Gen 1 Prius and Honda hybrid drivers have suffered, if they've purchased replacement packs that have been sitting for ages. I'm hoping that the Roadster pack issue is a good (reasonably) early lesson lesson to Tesla that they need an eye on replacement cycles. JB Straubel said that they assume 10 year life for their batteries, and I think that the US fleet average of 11 years means it's safe to assume that any car they build will need 2 or more packs during their lifetime. It's going to be quite a while until the technology stalls or bottoms out, so if they want to abandon legacy versions they need to be ready to build new packs with backwards compatibility. Since more range means less time at Superchargers, they'll have more than just PR reasons to offer capacity upgrades.

 

[rlang59]

I know, right? "This is a Tesla? I thought they only made sedans. When did these come out?" Even worse when it's a Model S owner asking.

To me that's a good thing, means the car has gone more mainstream.

 

[ericspecullaas]

the funny thing to me is that they told roadster owners were told that they would get some love later this year. guess what its August there is only 4 months left in the year. on that note if the battery pack is upgraded then it makes sense that they would also add in supercharger access as an option. the reason behind this is from the start the roadster was before there own charging stations. So to go back and say "hey we want you guys to also take long trips as well" is a nice thing.

 

[Doug_G]

the funny thing to me is that they told roadster owners were told that they would get some love later this year. guess what its August there is only 4 months left in the year.

Pretty sure the "special thing for Roadster" was the announcement of the extended battery pack.

For reasons stated above, and the fact that Elon emphatically said as much, Supercharging is not going to happen for Roadster