How Will Electric Vehicles Be Modified in the Future?

[furcifer]

Re-read the comment and the links.....
......it does not presume anything about making batteries
And It is already being done.!

I'm lost, what 3rd party was offering battery upgrades to Tesla customers so they could use ludicrous mode?

 

[furcifer]

No. There are many ways an EV could have its “performance” made more suitable for towing.

Sure, I'm thinking magic unicorns that fart rainbows that smell like orange sherbert.

What performance modification are people doing to ICE's for towing? None.

There's even less reason to do so with an EV. Like I said, the problem is towing is incredibly hard on range which is a battery issue. None of the EV's I've seen have less towing capacity than similar sized ICE vehicles. So I'm not seeing what your point here is? What am I missing?

 

[furcifer]

This. Manufactures of ICE cars have been de-tuning their base model cars and selling "premium" models where the only difference performance wise is an ECU flash.

Because of restrictions imposed by the government. None of this has to do with drive train components or durability. It is 100% a result of government imposed regulations on emissions. And maybe a little to do with insurance companies. I seem to recall restrictor plates becoming popular in the 60's because insurance rates we becoming a function of the hp.

I guess this could happen with EV's . You'll end up with "250hp" models maybe encrypted and fused at the factory so that they can be insured as a regular car, but are actually very easy to modify to say 500hp.

Like I say, it's going to take some outside force to get manufacturers to not offer things like ludicrous mode. It could be insurance companies, or maybe even organizations like MADD. I think they got involved when the SRT4 first came out and kids were flipping them every other weekend.

 

[furcifer]

Given the context of the discussion which was about the breaking strength of components (and because you didn't specify) I took "designed to hold 1000lbs" as being failure point = ~1001lbs.

I actually said the nominal failure point of a lifting component rated for 10 tonnes with a factor of safety of 5 is 50 tonnes.

No, design is design. Ultimate or nominal is the point at which something breaks. Given we are talking mostly about metal this would be the yield stress or strength.

I"m not sure why you're jumping from statics to dynamics, I suppose you must be more familiar with statics?

Partly correct. The factor of safety is fudge factor used because the exact loadings, resulting forces, material properties, manfacturing tolerances and environmental and useage characteristics are not precisely known. It attempts to fill the gap between how you think a part will behave and how it actually behaves in the real world. Remember, you must account for (guess[timate] at) known-unkowns as well as unknown-unknowns.

Partly correct. It's not a single factor though, it's a sum. By adding load or torque you don't change material properties, tolerances, environment etc. which are all factors in the overall factor of safety.

There's no rule saying safety factors must be integers and they commonly aren't. Air travel would be more interesting if they were as it'd either be very dangerous or much slower, shorter and more expensive if SF had to be 1 or 2 instead of 1.25 or 1.5.

Correct, my bad. I was trying to decided on what to use to explain it is a multiplicative constant and used integer not thinking about the fact they don't include decimals.

Typically we add up the decimals and round to .5 or a whole number. I've never seen anything 1.25 on it's own, but sure it's possible.

That's a negative, ghost-rider. Unless the drivetain was over-specified (badly engineered from a value perspective) in the first place, you cannot increase power through it by any appreciable amount without a noticable increase in failure rate. Automotive OEMs spend a lot of money testing a lot of components to determine what is required to fulfill the design requirements of a vehicle.

It's still within the FoS so you never seen changes to drive train unless it's like a crazy huge difference. Something that's really only possible with ICE's. So you have to take a car with 250hp, boost it to 1000hp and add huge tires before you start bending axles.

You seem to think if a gearbox is rated for 200Nm, has a SF of, say 3, and designed to last 200,000 miles that you can run it at 600Nm and expect it to last at least 67,000 miles...

lol, no that's what you've been saying.

The FoS has nothing to due with longevity. I think you're confusing it with "grade". Usually the grade signifies how a part will wear, whereas the FoS is how strong a part is.

If anything I'd expect components from yesteryear to typically have had more design margin. Such things tend to get steadily trimmed to reduce cost and weight.

Yes and no. It's counter balanced by changes in materials and production tolerances etc. Your average car today will see many more miles than cars of the past. I doubt if Ford ever dreamed of offering a 100 000 mile warranty. The life span of a K car is probably less than the first oil change interval on some cars today.

 

[SquidBonez]

What performance modification are people doing to ICE's for towing?

Any power modification that increases torque, really.

 

[SquidBonez]

Because of restrictions imposed by the government.

No, I mean there are cars that are exactly the same drivetrain wise, with the only difference between base and premium trims being a more powerful tune. This isn't about regulations, car companies have done this for a while to make premium models seem more appealing but not actually costing more to produce.

 

[furcifer]

What performance modification are people doing to ICE's for towing?

Any power modification that increases torque, really.

That's called "buying a diesel".

 

[furcifer]

No, I mean there are cars that are exactly the same drivetrain wise, with the only difference between base and premium trims being a more powerful tune. This isn't about regulations, car companies have done this for a while to make premium models seem more appealing but not actually costing more to produce.

Is that your theory or do you have evidence to support this?

It's usually the other way around, with performance models being detuned to meet EPA or gas guzzler taxes, insurance rates, etc.

People like to speculate but they never have all of the information. They don't understand how vehicles are assembled, made for multiple markets, taxes, regulations etc. Premium models can be more expensive to make just because when you have guys doing 99 cars in a row the exact same way, then have 1 that's different tends to create a lot of screw ups. All it takes is 1 guy out of the 1200 to stop the line for 20 seconds and you can tack on another $10,000 to the cost of producing that vehicle. Different paint means changing out to run batches which costs money. Smaller production runs on trim panels means they cost a lot more. If they have to come off the line for some reason it could cost thousands. Taxes in one market can mean recouping costs in another. A lot of variables that people don't see when they look at a car.

 

[SquidBonez]

Is that your theory or do you have evidence to support this?

There are many manufactures who do this, but here's an example. The newer Audi R8s use the same powerplant between the V10 and the V10 plus, the only difference being a tune. Want more power? Buy the Plus model for an extra $10k, or get it tuned for a few hundred. And some newer BMWs have been caught doing this, but there are more out there.

 

[furcifer]

Is that your theory or do you have evidence to support this?

There are many manufactures who do this, but here's an example. The newer Audi R8s use the same powerplant between the V10 and the V10 plus, the only difference being a tune. Want more power? Buy the Plus model for an extra $10k, or get it tuned for a few hundred. And some newer BMWs have been caught doing this, but there are more out there.

Yah, I'm like 99% sure the base model Audi R8 is still a performance model.

The plus is just a package option. Carbon fibre intakes, a spoiler, different gearing, and not just a flash. I guess you could flash the R8 to get the extra 50hp from the engine but you would void the warranty.

This is actually an example of what I was saying before, you want a performance tune in a super car you get it done at the factory, not some 3rd party. Reminds me of the Koenigsegg Agera RS, with the $200K electric "performance upgrade" (makes $10K seem like a steal). These are one off's intended for collectors, not an example of standard manufacturing practices.

You'll also find that the factory specs hardly ever match up to dyno tests in these cars. A lot of countries tax the hell out of high end performance cars so they just take a BHp and apply a standard formula that's always lower that actual Hp.

(I still remember the first time I saw an R8. Cambie and Broadway in Vancouver, summer day. I didn't know what it was, I just saw the hood emblem and knew it was an Audi. I still loves the lines on the R8, I've never been a fan of the sharp edges and gaudiness of most super cars these days.)

 

[spinningmagnets]

In the general design trends I'm seeing, all of the components in most EVs are very well matched to get the best possible performance from the smallest and lightest drivetrain. Significant efforts are being directed towards this.

There doesn't seem to be any wiggle room for upgrades to performance. What I am seeing most often is EV drivetrains swapped into ICE cars.

 

[SquidBonez]

Yah, I'm like 99% sure the base model Audi R8 is still a performance model.

That's not the point. The point is it still is de-tuned for no reason other than to boost sales of more expensive models.

The plus is just a package option. Carbon fibre intakes, a spoiler, different gearing, and not just a flash. I guess you could flash the R8 to get the extra 50hp from the engine but you would void the warranty.

While it's still under warranty, sure. But warranties are temporary - and don't always stop people from tuning anyway, especially when they have money to burn. And yeah I know the Plus does have some extra add-ons, but is identical engine wise other than software.

This is actually an example of what I was saying before, you want a performance tune in a super car you get it done at the factory, not some 3rd party.

If you want to spend an extra $10k just to get more power then be my guest, or you could just get it tuned.

 

[furcifer]

If you want to spend an extra $10k just to get more power then be my guest, or you could just get it tuned.

You said it was because they cost the same to produce, but they don't. It costs a lot more to produce carbon fibre than it does plastic. And a lot more to change the gearing. Probably not $10K for VAG, but it would cost you more in resale and parts.

Anyways, I think you're starting to make my point for me. If people are already buying base models because the modified cars aren't worth it, and there are 250 000 on the road, not 250, there's no need for tuning because the program will be available on Facebook, and you'll be able to make the changes using an AP.

Gearing isn't an issue with EV's, and I clearly stated numerous times, the modification will be weight (carbon fibre), traction (tires) and aerodynamics(spoilers).

 

[spinningmagnets]

At last, you no longer need to wonder. Here is how they are being modified right now...

"Hi power inverter for Nissan leaf motor. Dyno's 302-HP"
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=63982

 

[SquidBonez]

You said it was because they cost the same to produce, but they don't. It costs a lot more to produce carbon fibre than it does plastic. And a lot more to change the gearing. Probably not $10K for VAG, but it would cost you more in resale and parts.

Engine wise, yes they do cost the same to produce. Obviously the Plus costs more due to added carbon fibre among other things, but engines of the two cars are identical. The only difference is the software. The Base model is intentionally de-tuned.

 

[SquidBonez]

At last, you no longer need to wonder. Here is how they are being modified right now...

"Hi power inverter for Nissan leaf motor. Dyno's 302-HP"
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=63982

Very interesting thread. Thanks for sharing!

 

[furcifer]

You said it was because they cost the same to produce, but they don't. It costs a lot more to produce carbon fibre than it does plastic. And a lot more to change the gearing. Probably not $10K for VAG, but it would cost you more in resale and parts.

Engine wise, yes they do cost the same to produce. Obviously the Plus costs more due to added carbon fibre among other things, but engines of the two cars are identical. The only difference is the software. The Base model is intentionally de-tuned.

This really is a matter of perspective.

 

[SquidBonez]

This really is a matter of perspective.

No, it isn't. I have no idea why you continue to argue me about this specific point when it has very little to do with the main post. The engines of both the Base and Plus models are IDENTICAL save for software. This is just a fact. The Plus does have many other "premium" features like carbon fibre, different gearing, etc, but the engine is identical to the Base save for a tune. This practice is pretty common.

 

[furcifer]

No, it isn't. I have no idea why you continue to argue me about this specific point when it has very little to do with the main post. The engines of both the Base and Plus models are IDENTICAL save for software.

I think I went over your head here.

You say the base model is de-tuned, I say the plus model is tuned. Capiche?

Regardless, supercars are off the table. EV's aren't supercars, unless they are supercars. If you want to talk about the stupid stuff that will happen in the future with supercars then the sky is the limit. I'm sure they will have gold wheels and soft ice cream dispensers and any other thing you can imagine.

You are fantasizing, I'm speaking to reality. I assumed this thread was based in what's actually going to happen, not what you dream could happen.

The reality is no car manufacturer is going to try and charge more for a car that only requires 2 seconds on the internet to upgrade to a "performance model". That's a cold, hard, irrefutable fact my friend. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. EVER.

Will they scale back the performance to make the performance model seem better? I guess it's possible but you'd have to assume your customers are idiots, which tends to get exposed. But hey, Apple has been doing this successfully for years so you never know....

 

[SquidBonez]

You say the base model is de-tuned, I say the plus model is tuned. Capiche?

So you admit that the only difference is a tune?

Regardless, supercars are off the table.

Don't try and move the goalposts. But even if you want to ignore supercars, this occurs in other cars as well. I believe the 2-series was caught doing this a year or so back.

You are fantasizing, I'm speaking to reality. I assumed this thread was based in what's actually going to happen, not what you dream could happen.

You keep saying how "based in reality" you are but you keep being disproven on your main stance that people won't modify electric cars' powertrains multiple times already. Many posts in this thread ALONE provide actual proof TODAY of people modifying electric vehicles, yet you keep ignoring it with this "air of superiority". You have done nothing but argue extremely specific points of everyone else's posts to the point of going way off topic. It's getting tiresome.

The reality is no car manufacturer is going to try and charge more for a car that only requires 2 seconds on the internet to upgrade to a "performance model". That's a cold, hard, irrefutable fact my friend. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. EVER.

IT HAPPENS TODAY. What aren't you getting? This is what I mean. I give you actual proof of something happening, and you just turn your head and ignore it while ironically claiming you are based in reality.

 

[furcifer]

So you admit that the only difference is a tune?

No, there's high performance parts on the plus that aren't on the base model. THAT'S WHY IT COSTS MORE MONEY.

This is insane, you're talking super cars, limited production and 2% more hp. It's pure fantasy, this is not how the real world works.

Don't try and move the goalposts. But even if you want to ignore supercars, this occurs in other cars as well. I believe the 2-series was caught doing this a year or so back.

Yah you keep saying this but provide absolutely no evidence to support this. I on the other hand gave you several reasons why this is not actually true.

Keep dreaming.

You keep saying how "based in reality" you are but you keep being disproven on your main stance that people won't modify electric cars' powertrains multiple times already. Many posts in this thread ALONE provide actual proof TODAY of people modifying electric vehicles, yet you keep ignoring it with this "air of superiority". You have done nothing but argue extremely specific points of everyone else's posts to the point of going way off topic. It's getting tiresome.

Who is making performance batteries for Tesla's?

Nobody.

Who is making performance drive trains for Tesla's?

Nobody.

It's been 10 years dude, and nobody is doing it. Nobody. Why? Because the manufacturer is doing it and can do it better than anyone else.

So keep dreaming things are going to change, but they aren't. The motors are too efficient, the engineering is too good, the programming is too easy and the batteries are too expensive. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

IT HAPPENS TODAY. What aren't you getting? This is what I mean. I give you actual proof of something happening, and you just turn your head and ignore it while ironically claiming you are based in reality.

The fact that you're comparing a super car to a production vehicle aside, what you gave is a textbook example of what's to come. Performance models with expensive performance parts designed to increase efficiency by reducing weight and drag, and a "tune" that anyone with the internet can get for free.

If any manufacturer tries to do the latter with a standard production vehicle it will be so transparent they will look like fools. So I just don't see it happening. At least not very often.

You seem to think EV's are going to have ECU's, but they aren't. ECU's made it difficult and expensive for manufacturers to change settings to vehicles. Those days are history. With EV's you're going to see real time changes to a vehicles programming with very little cost. It's a game changer. This is something you need to wrap your head around. Any performance tweaks the manufacturer creates can be instantly sent to the customer at no cost. You can't compete with this and nobody will.

I'm trying to envision a scenario where this won't happen but I can't. You're not going to see cheap, weak drive trains on electrics because they generate too much torque at start up. The peak draw at start-up means the wiring, controllers, inverters and battery need to handle that power, so you can't really skimp on that. Putting in a motor that can handle way more power than the rest of the car is designed for doesn't make sense. It's expensive, inefficient and potentially a liability. Motor swaps aren't likely to be possible because EV's aren't designed that way, and they probably won't ever be designed that way. The space being used to house the motor is already +90% efficient. The only possibility I can think of is a lateral move to something like a reluctance motor which would eliminate the need for an inverter and maybe gain you some weight advantage, but you'd probably lose reverse in the process.

Anyways, I don't know what's going to happen. Things would have to change considerably for me to see things different than what I've outlined here.

 

[Hillhater]

.......
Who is making performance drive trains for Tesla's?
Nobody........

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 .

 

[Punx0r]

You seem to think EV's are going to have ECU's, but they aren't. ECU's made it difficult and expensive for manufacturers to change settings to vehicles. Those days are history. With EV's you're going to see real time changes to a vehicles programming with very little cost.

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...

 

[Punx0r]

Given the context of the discussion which was about the breaking strength of components (and because you didn't specify) I took "designed to hold 1000lbs" as being failure point = ~1001lbs.

I actually said the nominal failure point of a lifting component rated for 10 tonnes with a factor of safety of 5 is 50 tonnes.

No, design is design. Ultimate or nominal is the point at which something breaks. Given we are talking mostly about metal this would be the yield stress or strength.

I"m not sure why you're jumping from statics to dynamics, I suppose you must be more familiar with statics?

"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. 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.

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.

Partly correct. The factor of safety is fudge factor used because the exact loadings, resulting forces, material properties, manfacturing tolerances and environmental and useage characteristics are not precisely known. It attempts to fill the gap between how you think a part will behave and how it actually behaves in the real world. Remember, you must account for (guess[timate] at) known-unkowns as well as unknown-unknowns.

Partly correct. It's not a single factor though, it's a sum. By adding load or torque you don't change material properties, tolerances, environment etc. which are all factors in the overall factor of safety.

Once again I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make - I suspect it is, as someone else has said, that you are just arguing for the same of arguing. Want to try being a pedant because I used the word "factor" in "fudge-factor" not in its strictly mathematical sense? Fine, but try not to fall into the trap of being wrong while doing 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. 2 x 2 = 4 is a sum.

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

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.

There's no rule saying safety factors must be integers and they commonly aren't. Air travel would be more interesting if they were as it'd either be very dangerous or much slower, shorter and more expensive if SF had to be 1 or 2 instead of 1.25 or 1.5.

Correct, my bad. I was trying to decided on what to use to explain it is a multiplicative constant and used integer not thinking about the fact they don't include decimals.

Typically we add up the decimals and round to .5 or a whole number. I've never seen anything 1.25 on it's own, but sure it's possible.

"number" works pretty well to describe it. Use of jargon with the intent of appearing knowledgeable isn't recommended as it often backfires.

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.

That's a negative, ghost-rider. Unless the drivetain was over-specified (badly engineered from a value perspective) in the first place, you cannot increase power through it by any appreciable amount without a noticable increase in failure rate. Automotive OEMs spend a lot of money testing a lot of components to determine what is required to fulfill the design requirements of a vehicle.

It's still within the FoS so you never seen changes to drive train unless it's like a crazy huge difference. Something that's really only possible with ICE's. So you have to take a car with 250hp, boost it to 1000hp and add huge tires before you start bending axles.

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?

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

You seem to think if a gearbox is rated for 200Nm, has a SF of, say 3, and designed to last 200,000 miles that you can run it at 600Nm and expect it to last at least 67,000 miles...

lol, no that's what you've been saying.

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 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.

The FoS has nothing to due with longevity. I think you're confusing it with "grade". Usually the grade signifies how a part will wear, whereas the FoS is how strong a part is.

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?

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

If anything I'd expect components from yesteryear to typically have had more design margin. Such things tend to get steadily trimmed to reduce cost and weight.

Yes and no. It's counter balanced by changes in materials and production tolerances etc. Your average car today will see many more miles than cars of the past. I doubt if Ford ever dreamed of offering a 100 000 mile warranty. The life span of a K car is probably less than the first oil change interval on some cars today.

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.

 

[SquidBonez]

No, there's high performance parts on the plus that aren't on the base model. THAT'S WHY IT COSTS MORE MONEY.

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

This is insane, you're talking super cars, limited production and 2% more hp. It's pure fantasy, this is not how the real world works.

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.

Yah you keep saying this but provide absolutely no evidence to support this. I on the other hand gave you several reasons why this is not actually true.

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

Who is making performance batteries for Tesla's?

Nobody.

Not yet.

Who is making performance drive trains for Tesla's?

Nobody.

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

It's been 10 years dude, and nobody is doing it. Nobody. Why?

"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.

You seem to think EV's are going to have ECU's, but they aren't. ECU's made it difficult and expensive for manufacturers to change settings to vehicles.

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.

Putting in a motor that can handle way more power than the rest of the car is designed for doesn't make sense.

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

Things would have to change considerably for me to see things different than what I've outlined here.

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