Hacking the range extender

[Tinker71]

I am pumped about the range extender. An engineered high amp connection to the main pack is a game changer.

I usually own a vehicle for 10 years or more. With built in batteries you are limited to the tech at manufacturing. (although if battery tech really improves I could see people hacking it as well, after all what problem can't be solved with a good structural adhesive.) The range extender will evolve over time.

I am hoping our engineering contributors will go nuts with this. I can't wait to hear what they come up with.

Sponsored

 

[Tinker71]

Id really rather have the utility of the full bed. Its not that big to begin with

I wonder why they didn't go with a flat pack so you could place plywood on top, motorcycles etc. I think we will see this.

 

[fhteagle]

I don't like the physical form factor and placement of the Tesla OEM RE pack. I'd much rather give up the under bed storage, and have a consistent height across the bottom of the bed.

3rd parties may figure this out in time. Not going to hold my breath though.

 

[Tinker71]

I don't like the physical form factor and placement of the Tesla OEM RE pack. I'd much rather give up the under bed storage, or have a consistent height across the bottom of the bed.

3rd parties may figure this out in time. Not going to hold my breath though.

With the SS skin I was really hoping the CT would be some sort of legacy vehicle that could be upgraded and maintained. If Tesla made millions of them with few changes the 3rd party guys would have volume incentive to hack it. With current pricing this is a niche vehicle for the wealthy and this opportunity is diminished.

 

[Anses]

I am pumped about the range extender. An engineered high amp connection to the main pack is a game changer.

I usually own a vehicle for 10 years or more. With built in batteries you are limited to the tech at manufacturing. (although if battery tech really improves I could see people hacking it as well, after all what problem can't be solved with a good structural adhesive.) The range extender will evolve over time.

I am hoping our engineering contributors will go nuts with this. I can't wait to hear what they come up with.

I agree. Battery density will evolve. Hacking the connection would definitely void the warranty but Tesla could later develop a 50kw with half the size (maybe flat?) or a 100kw pack with same size bumping range to 600mi. I think with just the fact that battery extension with 48v architecture is possible on this vehicle it sets it apart from the rest in terms of longevity. ?

 

[JBee]

Hey about time someone posted this!

Seeing that the extension pack will have the ability to connect to the vehicle, it would be logical that "other" things could also be connected. Until now this hasn't been a included connection in other Teslas.

So from what we know so far the battery penthouse is located in the rear bed, behind the cabin bulkhead, and underneath the vault cover and air tank. That is also the location where the range extender will sit on on top of, and obviously where it will connect too.

The connection to the range extender pack will have to not only connect the power of both packs together but also connect for communications.

For me that means:
1) the power connection needs to have terminals to connect to. These terminals would likely be already protected and switched by the vehicle side electrical system, this is so that the terminals are not powered when things are being connected to it, like the extension pack.

2) This also means that it will be necessary for the extension pack to communicate to the vehicle (likely Eth/CAN) to share data, (battery levels, charging etc) and to enable the battery connection etc. This will mean that any third party extension pack, or load for that matter, will need to interface and communicate with the vehicle, so that this can be enabled.

3) One thing that needs to be considered here is how the extension pack will integrate into the main battery pack. Technically its possible that the extension pack could "trickle charge" the vehicle pack through a DC/DC converter and charge the same way. Disregarding the converter losses, this might work well enough for driving and provide around 20-30kW to keep the car moving together with the vehicle pack.

The problem with that is however, that charging times will be very poor at the Supercharger, as the extension pack will be limited to the DC converter rate. The advantage is that the extension pack wouldn't need to be balanced with the main pack.

4) The other option, which I think is most likely, is that the extension pack will connect to the main pack as extra "modules". From what I can tell the current 123KW pack is made up of 1344 cells, being 4 modules of 48S7P. So for the extension pack to balance with the main pack "WITHOUT" a converter, it would mean that the extension pack would have to be at the same type of pack voltage as the main pack. Given the 800V and pack split to 400V, the extension pack would likely also be split, so it would be compatible with older 400V SC and could simply switch together for the newer 800V charging.

It "could" have lower parallel count to reduce the capacity (the series has to be kept for the same voltage) but I somehow think that not having the same parallel number might result in some unbalanced charging/discharging over time, in comparison to the main pack. This could potentially be overcome with a heavy duty active BMS, but I think for any high kW charge discharge it would be less ideal. The means it's fairly likely that the extension pack will consist of two main pack modules, so about a 50%, which is close to the 40% range extension offered in the pack. Note there will be a 3-4% rolling resistance penalty for the extender pack range.

5) This leads to what "could" it be used for, seeing that technically this electrical connection point is also completely bi-directional, and it would give access to the main pack, it could also be possible to implement a ePTO connection to a high power third party electric implement.

This might well be the connection point for a future trolling motor option for boat mode, but also a place to connect other bed mounted how power options, like fire fighting water pumps, snow blowers and the like.

--

Overall I think there is a huge potential for third party integrators to use the extension pack connectors. The prerequisite here is that whoever does will need to integrate with the Tesla electrical control system to activate the battery connection. Tesla would have to offer this, or have a way to validate third party accessories before allowing access, but this is all within reason of possibility, provided there is enough interest from third party integrators.

A DIY option would also be possible, but you'd have to kiss any form of warranty goodbye, and likely indemnify Tesla when you use there infrastructure and chargers, should you system create unforeseen problems. Something to consider at least before embarking solo on such a mission.

 

[JBee]

With the SS skin I was really hoping the CT would be some sort of legacy vehicle that could be upgraded and maintained. If Tesla made millions of them with few changes the 3rd party guys would have volume incentive to hack it. With current pricing this is a niche vehicle for the wealthy and this opportunity is diminished.

Prices will come down, or inflation up. They needed to bolster the high demand with a high starting price, that also allows them to recover more ROI in the beginning to offset risks.

It's important to understand that a delivery event does not mean there is ANY meaningful manufacturing capacity. Production ramp is still a huge grey area, so the high pricing of the first few is not as relevant as what the price is when they reach full production rates.

 

[Tinker71]

Prices will come down, or inflation up. They needed to bolster the high demand with a high starting price, that also allows them to recover more ROI in the beginning to offset risks.

It's important to understand that a delivery event does not mean there is ANY meaningful manufacturing capacity. Production ramp is still a huge grey area, so the high pricing of the first few is not as relevant as what the price is when they reach full production rates.

As an investor I ok with pricing except they maybe have pissed of some customers forever.

My point was if million are made the 3rd party options will be better. If prices remain the same not so much.

 

[JBee]

As an investor I ok with pricing except they maybe have pissed of some customers forever.

My point was if million are made the 3rd party options will be better. If prices remain the same not so much.

Sorry I didn't mean to turn this into a pricing thread.

My post above that last one is more on topic.

 

[rudedawg78]

I wish they would install the range extender inside the vault storage. I would rather lose that storage and 1/3rd of the bed. But maybe they didn't do that because of weight distribution. ?‍

 

[Tinker71]

Hey about time someone posted this!

Seeing that the extension pack will have the ability to connect to the vehicle, it would be logical that "other" things could also be connected. Until now this hasn't been a included connection in other Teslas.

So from what we know so far the battery penthouse is located in the rear bed, behind the cabin bulkhead, and underneath the vault cover and air tank. That is also the location where the range extender will sit on on top of, and obviously where it will connect too.

The connection to the range extender pack will have to not only connect the power of both packs together but also connect for communications.

For me that means:
1) the power connection needs to have terminals to connect to. These terminals would likely be already protected and switched by the vehicle side electrical system, this is so that the terminals are not powered when things are being connected to it, like the extension pack.

2) This also means that it will be necessary for the extension pack to communicate to the vehicle (likely Eth/CAN) to share data, (battery levels, charging etc) and to enable the battery connection etc. This will mean that any third party extension pack, or load for that matter, will need to interface and communicate with the vehicle, so that this can be enabled.

3) One thing that needs to be considered here is how the extension pack will integrate into the main battery pack. Technically its possible that the extension pack could "trickle charge" the vehicle pack through a DC/DC converter and charge the same way. Disregarding the converter losses, this might work well enough for driving and provide around 20-30kW to keep the car moving together with the vehicle pack.

The problem with that is however, that charging times will be very poor at the Supercharger, as the extension pack will be limited to the DC converter rate. The advantage is that the extension pack wouldn't need to be balanced with the main pack.

4) The other option, which I think is most likely, is that the extension pack will connect to the main pack as extra "modules". From what I can tell the current 123KW pack is made up of 1344 cells, being 4 modules of 48S7P. So for the extension pack to balance with the main pack "WITHOUT" a converter, it would mean that the extension pack would have to be at the same type of pack voltage as the main pack. Given the 800V and pack split to 400V, the extension pack would likely also be split, so it would be compatible with older 400V SC and could simply switch together for the newer 800V charging.

It "could" have lower parallel count to reduce the capacity (the series has to be kept for the same voltage) but I somehow think that not having the same parallel number might result in some unbalanced charging/discharging over time, in comparison to the main pack. This could potentially be overcome with a heavy duty active BMS, but I think for any high kW charge discharge it would be less ideal. The means it's fairly likely that the extension pack will consist of two main pack modules, so about a 50%, which is close to the 40% range extension offered in the pack. Note there will be a 3-4% rolling resistance penalty for the extender pack range.

5) This leads to what "could" it be used for, seeing that technically this electrical connection point is also completely bi-directional, and it would give access to the main pack, it could also be possible to implement a ePTO connection to a high power third party electric implement.

This might well be the connection point for a future trolling motor option for boat mode, but also a place to connect other bed mounted how power options, like fire fighting water pumps, snow blowers and the like.

--

Overall I think there is a huge potential for third party integrators to use the extension pack connectors. The prerequisite here is that whoever does will need to integrate with the Tesla electrical control system to activate the battery connection. Tesla would have to offer this, or have a way to validate third party accessories before allowing access, but this is all within reason of possibility, provided there is enough interest from third party integrators.

A DIY option would also be possible, but you'd have to kiss any form of warranty goodbye, and likely indemnify Tesla when you use there infrastructure and chargers, should you system create unforeseen problems. Something to consider at least before embarking solo on such a mission.

Great insight. Option 3 will have some losses but open more opportunities and will not require as much cooperation from Tesla.

 

[JBee]

I wish they would install the range extender inside the vault storage. I would rather lose that storage and 1/3rd of the bed. But maybe they didn't do that because of weight distribution. ?‍

If they did you would loose your towing tongue weight capacity and handling.
It has to be mounted in front of the rear wheels. Behind it is not an option.
Plus it's straight on top of the main pack penthouse and connections to reduce electrical losses.

 

[sstevens805]

It would be nice if they offered a few different versions. A smaller pack to go in the underbed storage, one the full size of the bed but thinner so you only lose bed depth and not length, etc. I love the modular approach and also look forward to what folks come up with.

 

[JBee]

Great insight. Option 3 will have some losses but open more opportunities and will not require as much cooperation from Tesla.

Potentially, but a 20-30kW DC/DC converter wouldn't be as cheap as a few high power relays.

If it was me I'd be leveraging those motor controllers more. In saying that it might be cheaper than I think. Motor controllers on the next gen are quite low, they are meant to be under $1000 for the motor and controller unit. They are a few 100kW. With one of this in-between, they could probably make it work, but they'd have to rectify it to DC first, so the actual motor controllers can use AC for frequency RPM control. There would be losses, but maybe not to bad.

But a switch is hard to beat in performance and price.

Needs more thought.

 

[CyberGus]

Theirs is zero chance that the Range Extender will be user-serviceable. In fact, I’m gonna plant my flag on the notion that disconnecting the extender will disable the vehicle (“Battery Error, please contact support”)

Sponsored