Supercharger for the Roadster (Elon said "No")

[doug]

[With respect to the Roadster 3.0 battery upgrade] they should nix the [aero and wheel] stuff and just add supercharging. That's more useful than 400 mile range anyhow.

 

[gregd]

They should nix the other stuff and just add supercharging. That's more useful than 400 mile range anyhow.

I expect so, too. But why then the lack-luster enthusiasm for Tony Williams' CHAdeMO adapter? I'm seriously considering signing up for it, but wondering why almost nobody else has? It should be a game changer, even better when combined with the new battery. For just 10% more, get unlimited practical range?

Not trying to hijack the thread, but why wouldn't one want it?

 

[bonnie]

They should nix the other stuff and just add supercharging. That's more useful than 400 mile range anyhow.

That's been discussed by Roadster owners just a bit ... they needed a battery replacement anyway for a number of reasons. Supercharging would require additional engineering resources.

More than a few threads on this. But I'm sure we'll revisit. This is TMC, after all.

 

[ElectricLove]

I expect so, too. But why then the lack-luster enthusiasm for Tony Williams' CHAdeMO adapter? I'm seriously considering signing up for it, but wondering why almost nobody else has? It should be a game changer, even better when combined with the new battery. For just 10% more, get unlimited practical range?

Not trying to hijack the thread, but why wouldn't one want it?

One of my hesitations on the CHAdeMO adapter is that CHAdeMo hasn't had the adoption rate I'd like it to have. Most Chademo in the wild are not functioning (here in Phoenix), some regions have better coverage but they have not been strategically deployed to be of much value to a Roadster owner (ie. along major highways at 100 or 200 miles intervals). I hesitate on pulling the trigger, especially since the new Bolt, BMW and others are using SAE Combo Quick Charge rather than Chademo, there is still too much "up in the air" as to which QC will become the dominant and ubiquitus format in the wild, obviously the Tesla SuperCharging network is the most mature and well developed for our needs but we can't get on that!

Tesla could spend a couple months worth of Engineering hours to create a super-charging adapter for the Roadster, it would require PEM modifications of course and a charge-port modification and charge-cable modification and last it would also need an "interface" for communications (to identify the car and "talk" to the charging station)... I don't know their labor rates but I'd imagine they could sell at least 100 of these upgrades for about $5,000 a piece, I'd imagine that $500K would more than pay for the investment... They could even work with a 3rd party to develop it for them so they wouldn't have to waste their own man-hours and instead sub-contract the job...

Anyways, its doable and I think its worth doing and that Tesla should do it, but that is irrelevant to them I'm sure, haha!

 

[mpt]

I said yes, and paid the deposit because I figured that, yes, whilst CCS might be the 'new kid on the block' and might even become dominant one day, I can no longer see Nissan dropping CHAdeMO support and, as many units are dual head (it's not hard) I don't fear being left behind in ten years.

I bought my Roadster because it was the car that was 'available right now' - it's lack of J1772 socket has not held me back. CHAdeMO is available right now and I'm sure that Tony will take my money for a CCS inlet and software if there's an overnight revolution but I won't be holding my breath

 

[qwk]

They should nix the other stuff and just add supercharging. That's more useful than 400 mile range anyhow.

I'm sure the reason that they don't do it is because the Roadster laptop cells(that are now over 5 years old), will cause them nothing but headaches when supercharged. Couple that with a fully redesigned PEM and firmware, and this is a poor idea for so few cars. Alternatively, they have to support some kind of a new pack, because of the battery replacement option that they sold when the car was new.

 

[ElectricLove]

I'm sure the reason that they don't do it is because the Roadster laptop cells(that are now over 5 years old), will cause them nothing but headaches when supercharged. Couple that with a fully redesigned PEM and firmware, and this is a poor idea for so few cars. Alternatively, they have to support some kind of a new pack, because of the battery replacement option that they sold when the car was new.

Sound reasoning as to why they are going the route they are, its just business...

 

[doug]

I'm sure the reason that they don't do it is because the Roadster laptop cells(that are now over 5 years old), will cause them nothing but headaches when supercharged. Couple that with a fully redesigned PEM and firmware, and this is a poor idea for so few cars. Alternatively, they have to support some kind of a new pack, because of the battery replacement option that they sold when the car was new.

I meant add supercharging in conjunction with the battery upgrade (which already supposedly requires PEM changes) instead of the aero and wheel upgrades (which were an attempt to bridge the gap on the previous 400 mile battery claims). Given that a third party managed Chademo with way fewer resources, Tesla could do it if they wanted to. I think they should do it just for the cool factor. Just my opinion.

 

[gregd]

I'm sure the reason that they don't do it is because the Roadster laptop cells(that are now over 5 years old), will cause them nothing but headaches when supercharged. Couple that with a fully redesigned PEM and firmware, and this is a poor idea for so few cars. Alternatively, they have to support some kind of a new pack, because of the battery replacement option that they sold when the car was new.

"Super" can be a relative term, no? If they limited the current to, say, 125A, the batteries should be fine, and we'd have a reasonable fast charging option. I realize that Tesla will "never" support CHAdeMO or the other DC Fast Charging alternatives, since they are heavily invested in their own charging network. But given how few Roadsters there are on the planet, the impact would be nil to the supercharging sites, and could be a big PR boost to their cause.

I would think that Tesla could relatively easily OEM Tony's box, with a different connector and firmware for the SC network. Charge $5-6k for it, give 3-4 of that to Tony, and we'd be all very happy... Or, they could use the same approach on their own. But we've hashed this out many times here already, and I'm not proposing to re-open that discussion. In the end, I think that Tony's solution is a great deal for the Rav4 EV because it's an SUV, and not so much for the Roadster because it's not an SUV. It's not a matter of the technology, but the market / use case.

Now, the question is, what is our use case really? One of these years, I'm going to go out for our Christmas tree in the Roadster, with the top off and needles flying everywhere. Like that, the 3.0 upgrade and Roadster moderately-super charging are really demonstrations of what can be done, not something that enables a whole new market. As you point out, they had to do the new battery because of contractual obligations and to support the existing car fleet. They didn't have to do the new tires, wheels, brakes, aero stuff, etc. And guess what parts of 3.0 we don't have yet...

So, why am I typing all this? Partly, I guess, I'm trying to convince myself to do (or not do) Tony's adapter. We do have a pretty well deployed CHAdeMO network in my target area (SF Bay Area), but I also have both of Henry's CAN adapters too. I'll be taking the Roadster out for a relatively long drive to The Bay next week. I use the CAN-JR daily to charge at work, and if the CAN-SR is fast enough at the target recharging site (Fremont factory), perhaps that's all I need. I don't see myself taking the Roadster out on really long trips, not so much for the range limitations, but for the lack of trunk and seating space. It's not, fundamentally, an SUV. I already have one of those too, so why would I invest in trying to force-fit a capability in the Roadster, when the answer is already paid for and sitting next to it in the garage?

I'm no longer considering the 3.0 battery, and I think I just talked myself out of Tony's box. But we'll see what happens next week.

 

[bonnie]

But we've hashed this out many times here already, and I'm not proposing to re-open that discussion.

Thank you. THANK YOU. Thank you thank you thank you.

Now, the question is, what is our use case really? One of these years, I'm going to go out for our Christmas tree in the Roadster, with the top off and needles flying everywhere.

Pictures, please. (It would make a great Christmas card photo!)