How Will Electric Vehicles Be Modified in the Future?

[furcifer]

You have a conveniently selective memory
Go back and reread a few of the previous pages where various posters have provided links to sites, vendors, articles , etc of people providing upgraded components, controllers, motors, , complete drive trains for Tesla, and Leaf ( the two most numerous EVs)
I dont know what your issue is with denying that EV tuning does exist and will increase in the future, but you must be living in a different reality to the rest of us .

If you could post them that would be great, I never saw them. I've seen a few brakes, rotors and springs etc. aftermarket replacement parts, but not much of a performance market. If you look at the Tesla owners forums they seem to be buying things like LED's, cup holders, consoles and other trim pieces.

Sorry but I don't see much of a performance market happening the same way with EV's. I'm not saying it won't exist, it just won't be anywhere near what it is today in my estimation.

 

[furcifer]

That isn't my point, my point is why is the base car de-tuned?

It isn't. The plus model is tuned to match the $10K in performance parts.

Again, it's not just with supercars. VW does this with a lot of their cars (base Golf vs GTI), Volvo did this with their old 2.4 I5, newer BMWs, and rumor has it the new Supra. Hopefully this is the last time I have to repeat myself.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself, THIS IS BECAUSE OF TAXES, EMISSIONS, REGULATIONS, WARRANTY ISSUES, COSTS etc.

People say this all the time but they don't know all the details.

And again, it is my estimation that this will not happen with production model EV's. EV designs are likely to match the power train with the motor and battery and make it extremely difficult and very unlikely to be upgraded.

As for EV supercars, I don't see much of a performance market arising out of them. If there is any for ICE's, which there isn't, there's going to be less for EV's.

I gave you actual examples of cars that do this and you just say "that's not true" and nothing else.

Because it's not true, the R8 plus is $10K more because it has custom carbon fibre panels, a spoiler and different transmission gearing.

This is exactly why I know this is BS. People overlook things right in front of them and wish to ascribe some sort of devious plan by the manufacturers. You think VAG needs the extra $10K off an R8 plus to get into the red this year?

Like I've said, in my estimate this is just less likely to occur in production model EV's in the coming future. And I've given you several reasons. You're not giving me reasons, other than perhaps greed. It's BS.

Not yet.

And probably not very soon, if ever. It would take a big leap in battery technology to make it happen. And like I said, if it does happen a big manufacturer is likely to purchase the tech and market it exclusively to their vehicles.

As Hillhater said before me, you need to go back and read some posts.

Springs, brakes and rotors don't really cut it. I guess I've overlooked them because I'm specifically thinking along the lines of power mods. They are a go-to mod for garage mechanics and should survive the EV revolution.

"An extremely expensive luxury car that literally hit the market with brand new technology doesn't have many aftermarket options yet! I mean c'mon, it's been 10 years!" Give. It. Time. And people are still working with Tesla motors fairly frequently now. I gave you examples before, from 057 Technology to Steinbauer. But you refuse to acknowledge it. This is less about you proving a point and more about you just refusing to admit when you're wrong. If this were a matter of opinion it would be one thing. But I, as have many others, have provided you with ACTUAL EXAMPLES of people ON THIS VERY FORUM modifying electric vehicles, and you continue to say that "it doesn't happen". You are wrong. It is no longer a matter of perspective, you are just simply, utterly, wrong.

BS. I specifically did acknowledge it and we agreed to see what comes of it. Stop lying.

The problem I'm having is trying to get you to see the difference between custom building and aftermarket performance. If it's not mass produced by a major manufacturer of performance parts then there isn't much of a market. Nobody is going to pay $7500 for a custom made CNC CV. But there will be shops making these parts.

I'm sure somebody is going to make a complete race ready rear sub-frame for the Model 3 some day. It's possible. But it's a custom build. I don't even know what it would cost, but it's going to be VERY expensive. Prohibitively expensive.

What are motor controllers? What are vehicle control units? Both of these things serve the same purpose in an EV as the ECUs in an ICE. Again, wrong.

Purpose and function are two different things my friend.

Electric motors are inherently robust and normally can handle way more power than the battery can provide it.

Normally in the past.

This is where the argument lies. You're looking at the past instead of looking at how things will evolve in the future. I don't see this continuing. I see car manufacturers moving with EV's along a similar trajectory to what Tesla is already doing today.

Maybe stop and consider this for a second. What if car design doesn't suffer from regulations and emissions standards and instead the motor and drive train can be designed to optimize components to their fullest potential at the factory? Then what?

I don't think you've accepted some of the arguments I've laid out here. High torque at start-up means components are much harder to skimp on. High efficiency means the engine and the engine compartment are almost entirely utilized. And a bottleneck at the battery limiting the power you can put to the wheels without changing out the very expensive battery. And the fact that you're limited to how much traction you can get with tires.

People have been managing to get over 1000 horsepower out of the dual motor powertrains. The Zero motorcycle motors have been seeing 30% increases in power with nothing more than a controller swap. People have been getting over 300 out of Leaf motors. Just like an engine block usually handles way more power than it needs to, a motor can handle way more current that what it's provided.

And why would it continue like this indefinitely?

It won't, because that's just a fantasy.

"I don't need to change how I see things, the world around me must change as I see fit."

That's why I'm trying to open your mind up the new way of doing things and not looking at ICE's so much to make comparisons.

 

[SquidBonez]

It isn't. The plus model is tuned to match the $10K in performance parts.

THE PLUS AND THE BASE HAVE THE EXACT SAME ENGINE. The only "performance" parts on the Plus is a carbon fibre and suspension. NONE of those thing warrant a "de-tuning". And again, the Audi was just an example. The base model Golf and the GTI are the same way too. Same engine, only difference being software.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself, THIS IS BECAUSE OF TAXES, EMISSIONS, REGULATIONS, WARRANTY ISSUES, COSTS etc.

Both models comply to regulations. So why does one get a better tune?

And again, it is my estimation that this will not happen with production model EV's. EV designs are likely to match the power train with the motor and battery and make it extremely difficult and very unlikely to be upgraded.

Well your estimation is already wrong, as has been proven by previous posts.

As for EV supercars, I don't see much of a performance market arising out of them. If there is any for ICE's, which there isn't, there's going to be less for EV's.

You just keep proving my point don't you. I ALREADY GAVE YOU SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF SUPERCARS WITH AN AFTERMARKET FOLLOWING. This is what I mean when you keep denying examples people give you. READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS.

Because it's not true, the R8 plus is $10K more because it has custom carbon fibre panels, a spoiler and different transmission gearing.

This is exactly why I know this is BS. People overlook things right in front of them and wish to ascribe some sort of devious plan by the manufacturers. You think VAG needs the extra $10K off an R8 plus to get into the red this year?

I am not talking about the price. I'm simply stating that the Base is needlessly de-tuned over the Plus, which then BOOSTS SALES for the Plus. Nothing on the Plus warrants a de-tuning on the Base model.

BS. I specifically did acknowledge it and we agreed to see what comes of it. Stop lying.

But you JUST said that it won't happen, when it IS happening NOW. I gave you examples of it. We agreed to wait and see what would come out of the Steinbauer module SPECIFICALLY, not that we'll "wait and see" if people modify electric powertrains because they ALREADY are.

I don't even know what it would cost, but it's going to be VERY expensive. Prohibitively expensive.

Cars as a hobby are expensive. In the future a Model 3 subframe will be no different than any other "older" electric car part.

Purpose and function are two different things my friend.

What does an ECU do? Control an engine. What does a controller do? Control a motor. Don't over-complicate this.

Maybe stop and consider this for a second. What if car design doesn't suffer from regulations and emissions standards and instead the motor and drive train can be designed to optimize components to their fullest potential at the factory? Then what?

That doesn't mean the motor couldn't take more power. Motors inherently are very robust. Are you arguing that auto manufactures will suddenly put in motors that run at their absolute limit? Not good for reliability, which is why they won't do it now, let alone in the future.

And a bottleneck at the battery limiting the power you can put to the wheels without changing out the very expensive battery.

You can always demand more from the battery, assuming the powertrain can handle it. Run it hotter than usual. And as I've said before, batteries in the future won't be anywhere near as expensive. The batteries we have now are expensive because they're new, niche products. In the future, when every car is electric, batteries will be "old news", and thus cheaper.

And the fact that you're limited to how much traction you can get with tires.

And? Get better tires, manage the throttle, etc. Like they do today with ICE cars...

And why would it continue like this indefinitely?

Better components mean better performance. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Powertrains are designed to run at a certain voltage. Increase the voltage, replace lower-rated components, get more power. In the past, if you wanted more power out of an engine, you had to replace components with higher performance components. Nothing changes. To suggest otherwise is truly a "fantasy", as you love to say.

That's why I'm trying to open your mind up the new way of doing things and not looking at ICE's so much to make comparisons.

The only times I compare to ICEs is to compare the "cultures" around modifying cars. The methods will change but people will always try to get more power out of their cars, or motorcycles, or e-bikes, or quads, jetskis, UTVs, whatever. That is the tuner way. And they already are beginning to work with electric cars. Again, it's not a matter of if it's how.

Now, I'm going to be honest here, I'm getting tired of this. I know I'm never going to convince you because that would require you to admit you're wrong. It would be one thing if you just disagreed with me on a few points here and there, but no matter how far off topic we go you always find a way to disagree. You never admit you're wrong, regardless of the topic, and even when you have been proven undeniably wrong. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and I have in this thread on certain points. But you refuse to give any ground on any topic. And it's not just with me, I'm sure others in this thread can vouch for me here. Reading through your posts with other people, the same thing occurs. I truly think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Hillhater]

. I truly think you are arguing for the sake of arguing....

He wont admit to it ,..but he has the characteristics of a Troll..

....Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users.

Ref ..Wiki.

 

[furcifer]

"design is design", well thanks for clarifying that... I'm not sure what you're on about any more. I tell you a sample piece of lifting equipment is destructively tested with failure point at 50 tonnes and you reply telling me metal parts fail at the yield point.

You're still on about this? Design is design, ultimate is ultimate, and yield is yield. They are specific terms, although "allowable" is interchangeable with "design" or even hyphenated.

I'm telling you, the failure point of a part (metal or otherwise) is usually determined by the application/user. It can be yield or it can be UTS. It is when it fails to function as required anymore.

lol, no it is most certainly not. Absolutely not. It's done by testing.

And the distinction between statics and dynamics is what? Just because it's a different chapter in your book doesn't they are non-overlapping domains in the real world. You've jumped from EV drivetrains to frames, to furniture, to bridges. Feel free to tell us which of those applications doesn't see dyanmic loads.

You aren't using proper terms so it's hard to follow.

"design" or "allowable" is based on your load parameters, stress, strain, deflection etc. If your shaft was designed to deliver 30MPa and the factor of safety is 3, the shaft, when tested, should not fail below 90MPa. In the case of cars this is by law.

You don't seem to understand that the design incorporates all of the known variables and assumes things like fatigue. Your factor of safety cover uncertainties, bad metal, poor welds etc.

This is why you don't see many changes to the drive train when you moderately increase hp. It isn't required. And since the amount of hp increase you see in an ICE is potentially much greater, as well as the stresses in an EV being developed at start-up, modifying the power train, which hardly ever happens in ICE, is much, much less likely to be necessary in an EV.

Unless some company puts a giant electric motor in a cheap and poorly designed EV, there shouldn't be much need for power train mods in EV's. That's not to say people won't do it. People do all kinds of unnecessary thing to cars. I'm just saying there shouldn't be a need for it.

A factor of safety is not "a sum", it is, depending on how it's expressed, a number (5) or a ratio (5:1). It is the product of a sum, it is not a sum itself.

lol, so what do you think it is a magic number that they pull out of a hat?

The safety factor is an algebraic sum. It's based on calculating several ratings.

2 x 2 = 4 is a sum.

I'm hoping you mean 2+2 is a sum, because "x" is a multiplication operator and "+" is the sum. Completely different things.

Once again, you are assuming only linear relationships between power/torque and any possible effect on the components. You are wrong.

That's because it is linear. fyi-shaft designs are based on torque, not hp. You obviously don't know this.

I'm not sure what other drive train components you're going on about. Linkages? Control arms? You're just tossing vague things out there and hoping something sticks.

Please, please, get this into your head: If you have a mass-produced component designed to handle x-load and you place a y-safety factor on it, that does not mean you can allow the user to load the part to x * y. Failures will occur. End of.

No, x*y would be the minimum. Usually based on something like 99.5% of time.

That's the end of that story. Get a book.

Indeed, it is possible. It's apparently used in aerospace. It comes with rigourous design, exhaustive testing and a diligent inspection and maintenance regime in service. All things required to ensure reliable operation when safety factors are low.

I don't know, I'm in automotive engineering not aerospace. They use other terms and other methods of calculating similar design requirements.

Reliability is the number of parts that fail given the design using a normal distribution. Again, it varies from industry to industry.

Lol, this is just funny now. For one, electric motors have a much better short-term overload capability compared to ICEs. Most motors will take a 5-10x overload for ~10 seconds (long enough to complete a 1/4 mile run). What ICE can do that?

BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT. They have less moving parts and they don't have as many contact surfaces and as a result don't generate as much heat.

I'm sure this is something you will see in racing. But we aren't talking about racing are we? So try to stick on topic

Secondly, no you can't typically take an ICE vehicle with 250HP and safely boost it to 1000HP. Put down the crackpipe.

lol, go to a drag strip once in your life.

OK, you've clearly been hitting the pipe waaaay too hard.

YOU said an OEM manufacturer can take an EV designed for nominal motor output

You see, right there you did it again. Nominal load is a structural term which is like design, because the nominal load times the resistance factor is similar to the design load times the factor of safety. But you also seem to use it like "average", which is confusing, not only me but you as well.

(Yes, we're all smoking crack cocaine, haha)

and software enable a ludicrous mode with no changes required to anything. Myself and others in this thread keep trying to tell you all the different ways you are wrong, buit you won't listen. Once again, applying a factor of safety to a component design does not give you an indefinite overload capacity.

I NEVER SAID IT DID. Stop with the strawmen, it's boring.

This is simple. An axle is going to be designed for 100000N.m of torque, with a factor of safety of 3, that means it will not fail 99.5% of the time if it is loaded to 30 000N.m. That's the law.

That's tripling the load. A ludicrious mode is what, 30% increase in torque (and that's generous).

Now I know you're not good at math, but 0.3<<3 It's 1/10th. It's not good for the car, it's not advisable, it will reduce the lifespan of the part, but it is VERY POSSIBLE TO DO. That's your "fudge factor" at work.

Assuming you needed a FoS of 3 for federal regulations, you would then use something like 3.3, which again is usually covered in rounding.

You keep going on about the "real world" like cars aren't designed to be used in the real world. That's so not the case I find it hard to believe what you've been saying. It might seem hard to understand but the "ludicrous mode" is just a name, it's not ludicrious from a design standpoint. It's perfectly logical. Assuming you have the battery to support the mode.

Once again with the pipe... You might as well go and argue the sky isn't blue. Over-spec'ed, over-built equipment lasts longer. Have you ever built an Ebike, or just a regular bicycle?

The factor of safety is "over-spec", "over-built". You don't seem to know there's no difference. Pick up book.

Tell me this: why does lifting equipment for objects required a 5:1 safety factor but equipment for lifting people requires 10:1?

Obviously because the man-lift is designed to last longer.

Oh wait, that's what you're trying to say.

I would say in the event of failure the consequences are greater, so when calculating the factor of safety more emphasis is placed on this.

Right, so the design life on ye olde cars was a lot less, so any doesn't have to last that long before it's considered to have a large design margin... It's been a long time since you could overheat an ICE without causing serious damage and I don't recall Henry Ford using plastic suspension components. An example of that won't last 100 years even kept in an air-conditioned museum with zero miles on the clock.

I'm not sure what you mean by design margin.

 

[furcifer]

. I truly think you are arguing for the sake of arguing....

He wont admit to it ,..but he has the characteristics of a Troll..

....Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users.

Ref ..Wiki.

lol, you add no content to the discussion and only post to insult and call me the troll?

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

 

[furcifer]

And where is the software/firmware controlling the motor going to run then? In the Cloud???

You can still have an equivalent of an ECU with an OTA update capability...

*sigh

Hyundai has an app that will allow owners to change their car programming with their phone. For 2 decades this was basically "tuning" with ECU's and OBD. It required knowledge and tools and time. Now it's an app. If you can't see the difference then you don't understand cars and tuning.

I'm sure ECU's will continue to evolve along the same lines. You can get bluetooth OBDII readers, but you don't see the same stuff coming from the factory like you do with EV's.

So this will continue and only get better. This eliminates a lot of "tuning" that has taken place in the past with ECU's. Especially since the factory can offer it for nothing, unlike they ever did with ECU's.

It's not rocket science it's just basic logic and observation. Try to keep up

 

[Hillhater]

lol, you add no content to the discussion and only post to insult and call me the troll?

You have already shown that you do not read most posts, so you would not know what content i , or any other posters , have contributed.
As several have now said, you would do yourself (and us), a great service by spending some time re-reading this whole thread and trying to view it with a more receptive mindset.

PS..i did not call you a troll,....( again your ability to miss-interpret) ....
..but if you find that the hat fits you,..dont be surprised !