Supercharger for the Roadster (Elon said "No")

[strider]

Strider, I absolutely disagree.

The follow the leader attitude here sometimes wears thin.

I'm not sure which "leader" I'm following. My opinions are my own and are many times in the minority, especially around this exact topic.

The technology exists. It is already engineered. All that remains is repackaging into a roadster shaped battery case and potential upgrades or replacement of roadster computer systems.

There is no million dollar investment. Much of that is already done.

"All that remains..." You are assuming that all the internals between the Model S and Roadster batteries are the same, save the cells. I'm sorry but unless you work or have worked on Tesla's battery team I don't see how you can be so confident in what you're saying.

As far as Model T's, there are MANY different disk brake options along with flathead engine modification kits, engine swap kits, suspension kits, etc... People LOVE to modify old cars, including Model A's and T's. Your analogy falls short.

And how many of those modifications are offered by FORD? I'm guessing it is 0. And that is my point. If you read my last statement I am all for the aftermarket taking this on and if that is what tomsax is alluding to then I will cheer them on. Tesla should not be spending time and money on the Roadster beyond what they need to do for warranty and servicing (keeping them on the road). As you say there are 1,500 Roadsters in the US. Tesla builds more Model S's in less than 1 month. People don't look at the Model T when deciding to buy a new Ford. Well, let me rephrase. They may think that since Ford was the first (at least in popular lore, I have no idea if it's true or not) the mass-produce cars then they probably know a thing or two about them and so I'm going to buy one and Tesla will be in a similar position. But I can't image anyone sitting in a Ford dealership and saying that they aren't going to buy a new Focus or F-150 because Ford didn't retro-fit Model T's with newer technology that came out after the cars were built.

There are 1500 roadsters in the USA, and Elon Musk realizes that by modifying them and keeping them more current they have advertisement value. He also knows many of us want to modify them to some extent. He is modifying a roadster to make 400 miles with more than just battery upgrades. It is a constellation of upgrades including brakes, bearings, trim/body, tires, etc... Why invest all those millions and engineering time??? Proof positive that it DOES absolutely pay to make the exact upgrades you and some of the moderators feel are unwarranted.

Why indeed? At this point none of us know if the Roadster 3.0 makes sense. We don't know what it cost to develop, what it will cost to purchase, and how many folks will opt for the upgrade. Again, I am all for doing what is necessary to keep the Roadsters on the road which means an upgraded battery pack. What I question is adding additional functionality like Supercharging.

I'm sorry to ruffle feathers, but I think the reality is that these things can be accomplished just as adding disk brakes and fuel injected engines was when I added them to many old model T's as part of my old auto shoppe's common modifications.

But again I ask, were those modifications done by Ford Motor Co or the aftermarket?

I respect everyone's opinion, but that doesn't mean I cannot respectfully disagree with a few. If they can add heavier duty wires to the Roadster Sport and they can redesign a roadster to do 400 miles, then they can rebuild a battery with heavier wires and differing configurations to allow different charging options, (especially when the company has 2 batteries in production that can do all these things).

If this was just about replacement of failing batteries then Elon would not have had to creat a new battery with better mileage. He CHOSE to for advertisement value.

It's already been discussed but the increased mileage/capacity was a simple fact that the cells made in the Roadster are no longer available so if they kept the same cell count and simply used the newer cells then capacity was going to go up. They are legally required to create replacement packs for those holding battery warranties. So why not get some positive PR for doing something you have to do anyway?

As for the other upgrades. There's no question that Tesla COULD engineer the modifications to enable the Roadster to do Supercharging. The topic of discussion is should/will they. It's quite possible that the new battery pack alone wasn't enough to get to a 400 mile range - there was speculation to this effect here on this board by people smarter than I based on what is known about current battery technology. Elon had public stated that the new pack would allow the Roadster to go "around 400 miles." People like Elon hate to be wrong and many times will make bad business decisions to avoid having to admit a mistake. I'm not saying that's what happened here but the business press is littered with such things.

As they say, I guess we'll see.

 

[pharma5]

There's no question that Tesla COULD engineer the modifications to enable the Roadster to do Supercharging. The topic of discussion is should/will they.

Just checking - how would you feel about an aftermarket effort on it, if Tesla does not take it up?

 

[tezco]

....Btw, when I say semisupercharging, I mean DC using the existing stations but with modules added on Roadster to bypass the PEM and give DC to the pack at maybe 3x the kw rate you'd get via AC from HPWC and Roadster's native onboard charger.

iOK, so I guess you can only get 17 kW thru the CAN (which I assume maxes out the charger) so that 3x 17 would be much closer to a real supercharger rate. That would be much faster. Hope someone can make it work at a reasonable price point. Always fun to run into Roadsters, it would be nice to see them at the Superchargers!

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Always fun to run into Roadsters, it would be nice to see them at the Superchargers!

+ 1

 

[scaesare]

I was actually thinking the opposite...to get to a point where Tesla felt comfortable that someone else's hardware and software wouldn't damage a charging station or a vehicle (both equally detremental from a PR perspective), Tesla would probably have to put in just about as much work vetting and testing as had they done the development themseles from the ground up.

This seems the more likely scenario, IMO.

Given that there are folks for whom they won't even sell Tesla-built spare parts to (see Pariah), it's hard to believe they'd accept an entire 3rd party re-engineered charging system with their cars along with the accompanying risks of pack fire, pack degradation, supercharger damage, vehicle operation conflicts, etc...

I don't see Tesla blessing this... and that's not a knock on Tesla, it just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

 

[Juanmax]

HPC with 70A needs +3.5 hours to charge 60kWh, which would be a normal charge session with the new battery pack. This is too much for waiting, specially knowing that SC are not really in places that you can burn so much time.

A throttled SC (50kW) would give that in a bit more than an hour.

 

[tezco]

HPC with 70A needs +3.5 hours to charge 60kWh, which would be a normal charge session with the new battery pack. This is too much for waiting, specially knowing that SC are not really in places that you can burn so much time. A throttled SC (50kW) would give that in a bit more than an hour.

It (70A via the CAN) would be faster and more fun than 40A at a RV campground though, and might be simple enough to get corporate approval as an interim measure until someone figures out how to get higher current directly into the pack.

 

[tomsax]

I don't have official confirmation of this from Tesla, but I have heard that the Superchargers use 480V three phase service and that there's no easy way to get voltage appropriate for an HPC from that. Doing so would require another transformer, which would add more cost than just popping another breaker into a panel and running some wires.

If this is true, it makes it easier to understand why Tesla hasn't been installing either Roadster or Model S HPCs at Supercharger locations.

 

[strider]

Just checking - how would you feel about an aftermarket effort on it, if Tesla does not take it up?

I think that would be fantastic. I love my Tattler which is an aftermarket solution to the problem of remote access to Roadsters in the same sort of way as the topic at hand.

I don't have official confirmation of this from Tesla, but I have heard that the Superchargers use 480V three phase service and that there's no easy way to get voltage appropriate for an HPC from that. Doing so would require another transformer, which would add more cost than just popping another breaker into a panel and running some wires.

If this is true, it makes it easier to understand why Tesla hasn't been installing either Roadster or Model S HPCs at Supercharger locations.

Yes, this exact reasoning has been discussed in other threads.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Hi guys, as Scaesare said don't even think to build a selfmade supercharging system for the Roadster without the approval of Tesla.

 

[pharma5]

I don't have official confirmation of this from Tesla, but I have heard that the Superchargers use 480V three phase service and that there's no easy way to get voltage appropriate for an HPC from that. Doing so would require another transformer, which would add more cost than just popping another breaker into a panel and running some wires.

If this is true, it makes it easier to understand why Tesla hasn't been installing either Roadster or Model S HPCs at Supercharger locations.

I believe you are correct. I have heard the same.

It quickly becomes a question of trying to find stores etc. in the same SC location that will put the HPC on their own electrical service, which surely seems odd/confusing to them when a bunch of supercharger stalls have already landed onsite (i.e., 'didn't they just put in all the Tesla charging already? why should we pay for something ourselves in addition to that?').

 

[tomsax]

Just checking - how would you feel about an aftermarket effort on it, if Tesla does not take it up?

I would not consider an aftermarket Supercharger solution unless it had Tesla's full blessing. For one thing, charging at a Supercharger station without Tesla's permission would be stealing electricity.

Even if there were a Tesla-approved Supercharger solution, or an aftermarket way to access CHAdeMO/SAE DC Quick chargers, I'd be very cost sensitive and cautious about hacking up a rare collector car. For what it would presumably cost for a DC charging solution, I'd personally prefer to donate toward building out 70A charging.

 

[pharma5]

it's hard to believe they'd accept an entire 3rd party re-engineered charging system with their cars along with the accompanying risks of pack fire, pack degradation, supercharger damage, vehicle operation conflicts, etc...

I would not consider an aftermarket Supercharger solution unless it had Tesla's full blessing. For one thing, charging at a Supercharger station without Tesla's permission would be stealing electricity.

Upthread, it's acknowledged that the electricity would need to be paid for, and that Tesla ultimately has (more than one) control point on this if they want to prevent it. So yes, of course it would need to be with Tesla's blessing / assent. Who said otherwise?

Model S 60 has supercharging activation as $2k option on new car, or $2.5k to flip on after purchase. I would imagine, if Tesla goes along with an aftermarket effort, a one-time upfront fee per car would need to be paid. I further imagine the price will be similar to these.

If the right skilled people are up for this, I imagine a preliminary proposal would be needed to outline approach. Confidentiality agreements would likely be needed to facilitate open discussion of it with them. The highest standards would need to be met in regards to the work, not unlike what Tesla's vendors need to meet in their respective areas. Almost certainly must be self-financed, with stage-gated milestones to get check in with the company.

So what's in it for Tesla?

From a brand perspective, it fills in an odd gap that their first ~2500 cars can charge anywhere but their own supercharging stations. Here in the U.S., that means Nissan, Ford, and BMW sites but not Tesla superchargers. From first principles, that's an artifact of how things started, and not how they ought to be.

The resources are external, and the finance is external. Certain assurances and checkpoints would need to be made as to the standard of work, testing, and safety before activation. Fees would need to be paid.

Ultimately, it provides an example for open innovation and perhaps the first example of how other parties can work with Tesla on bona fide access to their patented tech, which received a lot of press but thus far has no takers that we know of. PR for adding this capability to Roadster, with Tesla's assent and/or guidance, ought to be very positive. Again, electric cars can be upgraded.

I've typed 'imagine' lots of times, so maybe it's all in my imagination. Maybe it cannot be done. Or maybe it's not worth the to do it. But if people with the right skill sets and $$$ want to try, I think it would be interesting to support it. (Stepping away from the soapbox now).:smile:

 

[Bugeater]

The discussion about the 400 mile pack and airframe mods, etc in order to reach 400 mile range reminds me of the mods GM put out for the 1963 Corvette. They had gotten lots of flack about the split rear window so they offered a mod to remove it. Now the ones with the split window are worth so much more than the ones without, it is absurd.
So if you let Tesla do the mods to your Roadster will it increase the value of it or decrease the value? The upgraded battery will clearly increase the value.

 

[scaesare]

I've typed 'imagine' lots of times, so maybe it's all in my imagination. Maybe it cannot be done. Or maybe it's not worth the to do it. But if people with the right skill sets and $$$ want to try, I think it would be interesting to support it. (Stepping away from the soapbox now).:smile:

Magic 8-Ball says: "Not likely"

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Upthread, it's acknowledged that the electricity would need to be paid for, and that Tesla ultimately has (more than one) control point on this if they want to prevent it. So yes, of course it would need to be with Tesla's blessing / assent. Who said otherwise?

Ok. Sorry I didn't understand.

 

[Roadrunner13]

...

Even if there were a Tesla-approved Supercharger solution, or an aftermarket way to access CHAdeMO/SAE DC Quick chargers, I'd be very cost sensitive and cautious about hacking up a rare collector car. For what it would presumably cost for a DC charging solution, I'd personally prefer to donate toward building out 70A charging.

+1
I would never consider hacking our rare collector car with a homemade solution!
I would also prefer to donate to improve the 70A charging network!

This seems the more likely scenario, IMO.

Given that there are folks for whom they won't even sell Tesla-built spare parts to (see Pariah), it's hard to believe they'd accept an entire 3rd party re-engineered charging system with their cars along with the accompanying risks of pack fire, pack degradation, supercharger damage, vehicle operation conflicts, etc...

I don't see Tesla blessing this... and that's not a knock on Tesla, it just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

+1 again

Testing and CERTIFYING a hardware/software integrated solution created externally to Tesla would very likely take Tesla more work than creating it themselves in order to do it right with confidence that all these risks are eliminated!

For those still considering it though, let me throw a little more cold water on this from my own perspective.

MARKJW already mentioned quite wisely that BMS, VDS and VMS firmare/software would need to be modified to control this 'new mode' of charging (DC vs AC).
Just the scope of making these changes to multiple systems WHEN you have the source code, is a significant software project in its own right.
Now consider that we don't and WON'T have access to this source code then this software project quickly becomes a nightmare.
Reverse engineering the software to then modify it successfully is a large undertaking with no guarantee of success!
Be certain Tesla won't provide the source code for these modifications.
Their original source code is not included with their 'patents' offering!

 

[xytor]

Supercharger to Roadster connector?

How difficult would it be to make a connector that allows the roadster to charge at a supercharger?
It would be worth it even if it were really big and heavy, and didn't charge at the full power of the supercharger.
Honestly it would be worth it even if it charged at the rate of a J1772. The value here is the supercharger network infrastructure.

It would probably need to have some internal circuitry such as a DC->AC inverter and some transformers?
I can't imagine that it's impossible or would be too big to fit in the trunk...

What do y'all think?

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Don't understand this thread. You are speaking as if the Roadster 3.0 was available for Supercharging. But it's not like this.

 

[bonnie]

How difficult would it be to make a connector that allows the roadster to charge at a supercharger?
It would be worth it even if it were really big and heavy, and didn't charge at the full power of the supercharger.
Honestly it would be worth it even if it charged at the rate of a J1772. The value here is the supercharger network infrastructure.

It would probably need to have some internal circuitry such as a DC->AC inverter and some transformers?
I can't imagine that it's impossible or would be too big to fit in the trunk...

What do y'all think?

You must be new here . Seriously, this has been discussed into the ground in other threads. Roadster Supercharging?