How Will Electric Vehicles Be Modified in the Future?

[SquidBonez]

You keep talking about the LEAF, It's been out for almost a decade. There's no modifications yet. And there never will be.

I've been using it as an example. And there's no aftermarket, so modifications are much harder to do because it's all done by amateurs in their free time. That being said, there are modifications out there. The guy from 057 Technology (behind the Teslonda) has swapped inverters on Leafs, and people are building custom, open source controllers for them, etc. The reason why there's not many is because the Leaf isn't exactly an "appealing" car to most enthusiasts. Once you have an electric equivalent to a Miata - something cheap and performance oriented - you will see an aftermarket begin to develop. In a couple years, when most mechanics are familiar with EVs, that's when things will really start taking off. Consider than ICE vehicles have been being built/worked on/modified for over 100 years. Electric cars (in their modern form) have barely been around for 2 decades, and are still a tiny minority of cars on the road. The vast majority of mechanics aren't even prepared to work on them yet. Give it time.

I think you're forgetting that EV's have been engineered today. You keep comparing them to ICE's of the past. Have you even looked at a Tesla? Not the outside, the guts. Everything is engineered to fit perfectly. You can barely get your hand in let alone stick your head in.

That's okay. EV components (battery aside) tend to be small. You could theoretically fit different modules within the battery pack case. We aren't talking about an engine swap here, we're replacing electronics and computers and cables and modules.

I'm pointing this out because most people that are into performance mods prefer older cars with room. And displacement because that's where you can make performance gains.

For an ICE. Not an EV. There is no "displacement" on an EV.

 

[furcifer]

However, within the context of the discussion, you're saying if the Raptor was the same price at a base model people would take the base model.

Of course not. They'd want the Raptor, everything else being equal.

Which is totally incorrect. If people get free floor mats and a tank of gas with their new car they lose their minds. If a salesman said "Gee, we don't have the F-150 you want, how about you take a Raptor instead? Can you live with the fact that it may wear out faster?" There isn't a person alive that would pass up that deal.

Well, that's not true at all.

I'll list some of the people who have bought an F-150 over the past ten years or so that I know.

One wanted one to get a truck to haul people back who landed off the DZ. To him, high performance was a minus. Low cost and low maintenance were the big issues.

One wanted a truck for his solar business. The biggest issue was how rugged the thing was, and how long it would last with Tony Bagodonuts driving it and a load of tools in the back.

One guy was at least a millionaire and wanted a dually. He just wanted the cool look, and ended up buying an F-450 because he could get the cool four wheels in back.

One guy wanted a truck to commute 12 miles to work, because reasons. The bed has never had so much as a sheet of plywood in it - but he seems happy with it.

Car companies want to sell to all of the above people. And none of them wanted a Raptor.

Not buying something and not wanting something are two entirely different things. And there's a very big difference between a huge gas guzzling truck and an EV.

Regardless, the cost gap between the "performance" model and the lower models is already basically the battery. I don't see that changing anytime soon. And Tesla is doing the performance tuning for the customers. It makes no sense not to. I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Like I said, any company that doesn't offer it to customers at this point is suspect. Your company has bad engineers if they can't offer what Tesla offers. Plain and simple.

I think someone here should tweet Elon and ask him why his company is doing performance updates for their cars, because people want cars that last and long time and they don't know what they are doing.

 

[furcifer]

Once you have an electric equivalent to a Miata - something cheap and performance oriented - you will see an aftermarket begin to develop.

So someone is going to build an electric performance sports car that doesn't have performance??

Absolutely not, never, no how.

Again, there's nothing stopping manufacturers from tuning these cars to the hilt right out of the factory. Nothing except your imagination.

I think about the best you can hope for is a retrofit to new batteries as that technology progresses. If 10 years down the road batteries make a significant leap, and manufacturers don't have the desire to service them, and someone can get their hands on the batteries from the giant automakers, then maybe, just maybe you might see a little tuning.

I think I found a ray of hope here. :lol:

 

[Hillhater]

.....Tesla provides the fastest car possible with the battery you have, and that's all it takes.(In fact the mode is in the car, it's just locked out).

.....the cost gap between the "performance" model and the lower models is already basically the battery.

Again , NO, !
The “Standard” , $80k, model does not have a “performance” capability...
The larger battery (LR as it is now called) , is a $14k upgrade..
The “Performance” option is a further $16k...
..unless you have at least the “Performance”. Spec model, ...(+$30k over Standard)... you cannot get the Ludicrous upgrade.(+ another $15k)
And yes, performance shops and tuners ARE trolling the breakers yards for higher capacity and updated versions of Tesla’s packs...there is a very active market in reclaimed Tesla packs..as well as Leaf, Volt, and various other EV batteries.

 

[Hillhater]

....... And Tesla is doing the performance tuning for the customers. It makes no sense not to. I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise. Like I said, any company that doesn't offer it to customers at this point is suspect. Your company has bad engineers if they can't offer what Tesla offers. Plain and simple.

I think someone here should tweet Elon and ask him why his company is doing performance updates for their cars, because people want cars that last and long time and they don't know what they are doing.

Its a simple Business/marketing strategy..
Any performance version of either EV or ICE costs extra for the manufacturer to develop and produce, both in testing time/resources, and in hardware in the product.
Unless the company is targeting that market, there is no point in investing the extra time and expenditure.
..Hence why Nisssan have not offered a “ Sport/GT” version of the leaf......they are targeting the city commuter/ shopping car market. They have other products for the “Go Faster” market.
I suspect most Tesla “performance” spec buyers really dont think or worry about how long their car will last..( if that was a priority the would buy a F150 Diesel !)....they are more likely cashed up “ Ego trippers” who just want to be “ on trend” with their peers and social circle. I doubt if many even consider the environmental aspects of EVs
The Tesla will be replaced once a new “must have” comes along, or the lease is up.

 

[furcifer]

Again , NO, !
The “Standard” , $80k, model does not have a “performance” capability...

You're confusing a model name with what we are talking about.

Specifically, which Tesla car doesn't have a program to maximize speed for it's given options? Is detuned for longevity, wear, and range, and cannot be put into a performance mode. Which one?

 

[furcifer]

Its a simple Business/marketing strategy..
Any performance version of either EV or ICE costs extra for the manufacturer to develop and produce, both in testing time/resources, and in hardware in the product.
Unless the company is targeting that market, there is no point in investing the extra time and expenditure.
..Hence why Nisssan have not offered a “ Sport/GT” version of the leaf......they are targeting the city commuter/ shopping car market. They have other products for the “Go Faster” market.
I suspect most Tesla “performance” spec buyers really dont think or worry about how long their car will last..( if that was a priority the would buy a F150 Diesel !)....they are more likely cashed up “ Ego trippers” who just want to be “ on trend” with their peers and social circle. I doubt if many even consider the environmental aspects of EVs
The Tesla will be replaced once a new “must have” comes along, or the lease is up.

The Leaf had a tiny battery.

If you think EV's are going to continue to have tiny batteries you're living in the past.

I'm not sure if you ever noticed, but fancy options today are standard features in about 5 years. The first people to get them always pay for the progress. That's been a constant in the automotive industry and technology in general. Just about nobody bought a $10 000 55" flat screen 10 years ago, now you can get them at the gas station with a fill-up.

I don't expect EV's to plummet in price the same way, but you can expect all of these options, including performance packages to drop in price as the competition heats up.

 

[Hillhater]

Again , NO, !
The “Standard” , $80k, model does not have a “performance” capability...

Specifically, which Tesla car doesn't have a program to maximize speed for it's given options? Is detuned for longevity, wear, and range, and cannot be put into a performance mode. Which one?

?? What part of ..
....” The “Standard” , $80k, model S does not have a “performance” capability...”
.....can you not read ??
Also , the “Long Range” model also has no “Performance” mode
You have to specify the “Performance” model ($99k) to get that feature
Just so you are clear, there are “hardware”. differences between these models as well as just software .

 

[furcifer]

....” The “Standard” , $80k, model S does not have a “performance” capability...”
.....can you not read ??
Also , the “Long Range” model also has no “Performance” mode
You have to specify the “Performance” model ($99k) to get that feature
Just so you are clear, there are “hardware”. differences between these models as well as just software .

The base model S has a 0-60mph of 3.7s and has the same battery as the performance model. It's my understanding that the base model doesn't have the same traction motors, because the traction motors are going into the performance models. Here in Canada you can upgrade the base to the Ludicrious mode for $10K, which requires the installation of the traction motors and they change the fuse.
I don't see much of a future for tuners waiting to buy vehicles made during a parts shortage. And from Tesla's past history it's likely to be resolved in the near future.

 

[Punx0r]

Technology doesn't automatically always trend towards ever-greater speed/power/performance.

But that's exactly what I said. It's probably going to tend towards efficiency. I said that my very first post in this thread.

You said efficiency was the aim of tuning but clarified that you didn't mean energy efficiency, but specific power output. A 787 or A380 doesn't pack more power or speed into a smaller vehicle, rather it's much more energy efficient per passenger, which is the opposite of what you're saying. The trend of airliners went towards being a flying bus - slow and uncomfortable but cheap.

Furthermore, they'd still be running supersonics if they could turn them on with a flip of a button. It would just cost customers more to use the feature.

No, it really, really wouldn't. The wings on a typical airliner don't work at super-sonic speeds, you need a delta wing, which doesn't work properly at sub-sonic speeds, so is inefficient and requires high take-off speed, requiring a ton of power, fuel and noise. The cabin must be slender to reduce drag, limiting space. The skin of the airframe must be heat resistant (the top speed of concorde was limited by skin temperature and could only be painted white, any faster and it would have to have been steel. The SR71 Blackbird was titanium). The service life of the airframe is lower. Extra power is required for air conditioning etc etc

You seem to have a pretty simple view of engineered systems. Just because a paltry EV or ICE vehicle has sufficient torque to break traction when pulling away doesn't mean it already has all the hardware it needs to become a 1/4 mile monster and just needs the power desrestricting. The actual power required to produce high torque at low speed is actually quite small. Sustaining that wheel-spinning torque at higher speeds requires rapidly increasing levels of power. It also needs better tyres and suspension to provide grip to actual use that power instead of burning tread off the tyres. The drivetrain does actually need to be stronger - dynamic stresses on gears increase with speed, it's not just about static torque. All this stuff comes with a cost, weight and (energy) efficiency penalty that must be borne even when driving in non-performance mode, whether it's an EV or ICE. The EV just has less of a penalty by comparison.

 

[furcifer]

No, it really, really wouldn't.

It doesn't matter if needs to fold space and time, if the option existed at the press of a button they would still be around. This is hypothetical.

You seem to have a pretty simple view of engineered systems. Just because a paltry EV or ICE vehicle has sufficient torque to break traction when pulling away doesn't mean it already has all the hardware it needs to become a 1/4 mile monster and just needs the power desrestricting. The actual power required to produce high torque at low speed is actually quite small.

Yes, at zero speed it requires zero torque. I'm aware.

Sustaining that wheel-spinning torque at higher speeds requires rapidly increasing levels of power.

It stand to reason that since this is the definition of power it's probably true.

It also needs better tyres and suspension to provide grip to actual use that power instead of burning tread off the tyres.

Since we're splitting hairs, no this is incorrect. In order to roll without slipping it just requires an increase in the normal force. This can be accomplished many ways.

The drivetrain does actually need to be stronger - dynamic stresses on gears increase with speed, it's not just about static torque.

I would put forth that since we are talking about a car and wheels it's not about static torque at all.

All this stuff comes with a cost, weight and (energy) efficiency penalty that must be borne even when driving in non-performance mode, whether it's an EV or ICE. The EV just has less of a penalty by comparison.

So cars are heavier and less efficient now, because the improvements to traction and power come at a cost? You're right, I wasn't aware of this.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about power. Torque falls off from maximum at midrange due to back EMF, but it's still a maximum right from the get go.

 

[SquidBonez]

So someone is going to build an electric performance sports car that doesn't have performance??

Remember how earlier you thought I wasn't reading the things you posted? Well, I was. Are you reading mine? Let's start from the top. Not. Every. Car. Is a supercar. A Miata and a GTR are both sports cars. But a Miata is not as fast as a GTR. BECAUSE, they literally aren't built to be as fast as a GTR. Speeds cost money. Gas, electric, doesn't matter. Speed will always cost money. Software isn't this magic thing that will turn a Nissan Leaf drivetrain into a Tesla drivetrain. To go fast, a car needs the hardware to do so. The software simply controls the hardware. That being said, a Miata and a GTR are quite different on the "hardware" side of things. The reason the GTR is faster is because it produces 565 horsepower from a turbo V6 and has an extremely well engineered AWD system. It also costs $100,000. A Miata, meanwhile, has a naturally aspirated I4 that puts out 180 horsepower to the rear wheels only. No matter how you tune it, a Miata is not going to be faster than a GTR with stock internals. Okay? Now take that concept and apply it to electric cars. Not every electric car is going to be a 600 horsepower $133,000 luxury performance sedan.

Again, there's nothing stopping manufacturers from tuning these cars to the hilt right out of the factory. Nothing except your imagination.

Price. Mechanical limitations. Speed costs money. Please don't make me repeat it again.

If you think EV's are going to continue to have tiny batteries you're living in the past.

Capacity will increase, not physical size. That's why battery research is so hot right now. It's the quest to find the most energy dense battery. In an ideal world, batteries in the future will be smaller than the ones we have today with way more capacity. Solid-state seems to be the way to go.

 

[SquidBonez]

.....can you not read ??

I'm starting to think that's the case. :?

 

[Grantmac]

A sportscar is about so much more than 0-60.

 

[furcifer]

Remember how earlier you thought I wasn't reading the things you posted? Well, I was. Are you reading mine? Let's start from the top. Not. Every. Car. Is a supercar. A Miata and a GTR are both sports cars. But a Miata is not as fast as a GTR. BECAUSE, they literally aren't built to be as fast as a GTR.

I am reading this and I mean this all sincerity, please read my post for comprehension. I'm talking about a "Sports" car, which by it's synonymous with "tuned" and "performance". I'm not saying it's going to have 1000hp, what I'm saying is it's gong to be tuned, because that's what the "sports" is in sports car.

So again, my main point is cars, especially "sports" cars, will probably come from and be tuned by the factory. To such an extent as to make modifications as we know it today practically obsolete.

Mind you, this is something I don't want to be right about. I've dabbled in tuning over the years. Mostly 2 smokes, but cars as well. You think the kids are modding Civics today, I put an 82' 5 speed in an 83' Accord. That I bought for $50. VW's after that, I started learning hexadecimal just to use VAGCOM.

Every time I think about this though I come back to the same conclusion, for the last 40 years engineers hands have been tied by regulations preventing them from offering the full range of potential. With EV's, at least now, there's nothing doing that. Tesla is surely proving that, sub 3s 0-60 times and sub 4s 0-100 times for the entire line up.

And let's be honest, very few tuners are tuning for top speed. It's all about the 1/4. And that's where electrics excel.

So long story short, as long as the factory remains willing to offer tuning I don't see much of a aftermarket.

Speeds cost money. Gas, electric, doesn't matter. Speed will always cost money. Software isn't this magic thing that will turn a Nissan Leaf drivetrain into a Tesla drivetrain. To go fast, a car needs the hardware to do so. The software simply controls the hardware. That being said, a Miata and a GTR are quite different on the "hardware" side of things. The reason the GTR is faster is because it produces 565 horsepower from a turbo V6 and has an extremely well engineered AWD system. It also costs $100,000. A Miata, meanwhile, has a naturally aspirated I4 that puts out 180 horsepower to the rear wheels only. No matter how you tune it, a Miata is not going to be faster than a GTR with stock internals. Okay? Now take that concept and apply it to electric cars. Not every electric car is going to be a 600 horsepower $133,000 luxury performance sedan.

I feel yah. I'm just saying there's no performance market for a Miata that get it's door blown off by a stock Minivan. Which is entirely possible with EV's.

Capacity will increase, not physical size. That's why battery research is so hot right now. It's the quest to find the most energy dense battery. In an ideal world, batteries in the future will be smaller than the ones we have today with way more capacity. Solid-state seems to be the way to go.

We only talk in energy densities. :lol:

 

[furcifer]

A sportscar is about so much more than 0-60.

Yah, it's about the wind in your hair and a cool chick on your arm

That's a great sentiment, and I tend to agree. But until they start listing the top speed into a 90 degree hairpin the 0-60 is the benchmark. That's not just my opinion, that's like everyone everywhere's opinion. It's generally accepted because the braking and handing and all of the other good stuff has come along over the years. But like I said, I tend to agree. For the most part you're not launching and you're not driving top speed. A good car that hugs the road and can get you out of traffic when you want is my preference over a 10s 1/4 car any day.

 

[SquidBonez]

I am reading this and I mean this all sincerity, please read my post for comprehension. I'm talking about a "Sports" car, which by it's synonymous with "tuned" and "performance". I'm not saying it's going to have 1000hp, what I'm saying is it's gong to be tuned, because that's what the "sports" is in sports car.

So again, my main point is cars, especially "sports" cars, will probably come from and be tuned by the factory. To such an extent as to make modifications as we know it today practically obsolete.

So let's define what I mean when I say "tuned". When I say "tuned", I mean modified/altered AFTER production, specifically through re-flashing. My argument as to why these modifications would be worth it in the first place is that gas, electric, whatever, hardware limitations exist. Swap in better hardware, or simply run the stock hardware closer to the limit than what the manufacturer allows through tuning, and you got a faster car.

Every time I think about this though I come back to the same conclusion, for the last 40 years engineers hands have been tied by regulations preventing them from offering the full range of potential. With EV's, at least now, there's nothing doing that. Tesla is surely proving that, sub 3s 0-60 times and sub 4s 0-100 times for the entire line up.

I will say that it is easier to design an electric sports car over a gas one since you don't have to worry about regulations. Perhaps allowing for the car to be set closer to its limit But as has been shown with the Nissan Leaf NISMO, the Electric GT Championship Tesla Model S, or even just guys in their garage tinkering with the very few electric cars we have available today, it is possible to eek out even more performance out of these cars than what is provided stock (I know the NISMO is technically manufacturer-supplied but you get my point).

I feel yah. I'm just saying there's no performance market for a Miata that get it's door blown off by a stock Minivan. Which is entirely possible with EV's.

Well, a Chrysler Pacifica minivan - by all accounts a mom-mobile - is actually faster in a quarter mile than Toyota's GT86, which is a very popular entry level sports car. While electric drivetrains will allow for better performance over today's ICEs, as someone else said, not every sports car is a fast car. My "electric Miata" may end up being slower in a straight line than the new VW electric Microbus that's coming out. Point is, there are performance markets for all sorts of cars today - even the slow ones. "Why would you spend $3000 to modify your GT86 when my wife's Pacifica is faster?" Because people want to. People modify Minis, which aren't fast. But the fun is in making them faster, even if you could buy a car that's faster from the factory for more money. In the future, it may be cheaper to buy a used Tesla Model 3 and add some go-fast parts than buy a brand new electric sports car, sort of like it is today with ICE cars.

 

[furcifer]

I was on the launch team when the first model Pacifica was built. :lol:

I guess my only question is, how fast is your blender? Your washing machine? How about your hair dryer? How about your vacuum?

There are a bunch of electric motors lying around your house. How many are tweaked out?

There's a passion for tuning ICE motors that just doesn't exist for electrics. Are you also considering that? I think there's more incentive to mod your car I'm just not sure sure it necessarily translates over to to electrics.

 

[Grantmac]

Minivans ARE faster than Miatas, which are still the best selling convertible of all time.

There is such a thing as the joy of driving a slow car fast but it seems to be lost on most Americans.

 

[Punx0r]

No, it really, really wouldn't.

It doesn't matter if needs to fold space and time, if the option existed at the press of a button they would still be around. This is hypothetical.

If we're permitting magical things on a hypothetical basis then sure, I agree with you

Yes, at zero speed it requires zero torque. I'm aware.

I think you're confusing torque and power? Zero speed + zero torque = no motion. You can, however, have infinite torque + zero speed = no power. The efficiency of an electric motor at 0rpm is 0%, however torquey it may be.

It also needs better tyres and suspension to provide grip to actual use that power instead of burning tread off the tyres.

Since we're splitting hairs, no this is incorrect. In order to roll without slipping it just requires an increase in the normal force. This can be accomplished many ways.

1) You're forgetting CoF... My patented Teflon tyres last longer than any other brand of tyre - mainly because the car spends most of its time upside down in a ditch.

2) Keeping the tyre in contact with the road (maximising the normal force, if you like) is one of the key jobs of the suspension. A high quality, well-tuned suspension costs money. It also sacrifices passenger comfort.

3 Size, shape and construction of the tyres also improve grip, usually at the expense of ride comfort, noise, cost and life.

The drivetrain does actually need to be stronger - dynamic stresses on gears increase with speed, it's not just about static torque.

I would put forth that since we are talking about a car and wheels it's not about static torque at all.

You said if the drivetrain is strong enough to break traction at a standing start then it's already strong enough to withstand a "ludicrous mode". This isn't the case - pulling away is as close to a static loading scenario you're likely to get on a car, but there's more to consider.

So cars are heavier and less efficient now, because the improvements to traction and power come at a cost? You're right, I wasn't aware of this.

Err, yes? I'm sure you've noticed that since the birth of the personal automobile they have steadily gotten larger, heavier and more powerful. Aerodynamics and specific engine fuel efficiency has improved but in many cases this has been offset by the increase in weight and size. Ever notice how ICE super cars are surprisingly heavy considering the extensive use of lightweight, high performance materials in their construction? Fuel consumption is also terrible, even when driven sedately.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about power. Torque falls off from maximum at midrange due to back EMF, but it's still a maximum right from the get go.

The torque potential of an electic motor peaks at 0rpm and decreases thereafter. What you describe would be an artifically flattened curve using current limited to reduce torque at low speeds.

 

[furcifer]

You said if the drivetrain is strong enough to break traction at a standing start then it's already strong enough to withstand a "ludicrous mode". This isn't the case - pulling away is as close to a static loading scenario you're likely to get on a car, but there's more to consider.

The ludicrious mode just puts more power to the traction motors, which allows more power to the drive motor. Obviously this means more torque on the components but it's still within the allowable design.

Err, yes? I'm sure you've noticed that since the birth of the personal automobile they have steadily gotten larger, heavier and more powerful.

You seem to be confusing economy with efficiency.

The torque potential of an electic motor peaks at 0rpm and decreases thereafter. What you describe would be an artifically flattened curve using current limited to reduce torque at low speeds.

eta: I didn't read the whole sentence at first. Yes, it's limited by the controller so it doesn't unstick the wheels and spin the tires up to 12000 rpm.

 

[furcifer]

Well here's an interesting video. Check out what this EV tuner has to say about Tesla:
eta: it's a long video, most of the applicable stuff is early on. it's an indirect route so my apologies

[youtube]vfILTM_xcOE[/youtube]

 

[Punx0r]

The ludicrious mode just puts more power to the traction motors, which allows more power to the drive motor. Obviously this means more torque on the components but it's still within the allowable design.

What's the distinction between the traction motors and the drive motors?

Err, yes? I'm sure you've noticed that since the birth of the personal automobile they have steadily gotten larger, heavier and more powerful.

You seem to be confusing economy with efficiency.

Help me out here because earlier you referred to the specific output of an ICE as its "efficiency". If a machine consumes more energy to do the same job as another, I count that as a reduction in efficiency, which is also the same as fuel efficiency. Considering the context is "if you over-engineer a car to allow a ludicrous mode it will consume more energy in normal driving and therefore be less efficient", how are you defining "efficiency" and "economy" if you disagree?

The torque potential of an electic motor peaks at 0rpm and decreases thereafter. What you describe would be an artifically flattened curve using current limited to reduce torque at low speeds.

eta: I didn't read the whole sentence at first. Yes, it's limited by the controller so it doesn't unstick the wheels and spin the tires up to 12000 rpm.

That's more the role of traction control. Current limiting chiefly stops you damaging the drivetrain and power supply. This is getting away from the original point though, which was that you said if a car can break traction pulling away then inherently it has the potentially for a simple, software-enabled ludicrous mode that can produce - and safely handle - that same torque to high speeds. This is not true.

 

[furcifer]

Help me out here because earlier you referred to the specific output of an ICE as its "efficiency". If a machine consumes more energy to do the same job as another, I count that as a reduction in efficiency, which is also the same as fuel efficiency. Considering the context is "if you over-engineer a car to allow a ludicrous mode it will consume more energy in normal driving and therefore be less efficient", how are you defining "efficiency" and "economy" if you disagree?

I thought we were talking about motors. Motors are more efficient. And they are lighter.

That's more the role of traction control. Current limiting chiefly stops you damaging the drivetrain and power supply. This is getting away from the original point though, which was that you said if a car can break traction pulling away then inherently it has the potentially for a simple, software-enabled ludicrous mode that can produce - and safely handle - that same torque to high speeds. This is not true.

You're a little loose on your interpretation there. Maybe stick with proper terms. The allowable design stress in an electric vehicle is such that it should be able to handle something like a ludicrous made out of the factory. If it's properly engineered and there's no outside restrictions absolutely. The notion that they wouldn't properly design a vehicle based on the motor output is absurd.

And regardless I think I've made my point with that video. This guy has been tuning electrics for 20 years and he's giving up. He can't do what Tesla can do. If companies don't do what Tesla is doing then we're all going to be driving Teslas.

It's completely ludicrous to think a company is going to make an electric car that doesn't utilize the power plant. Right now there's a few but they're not utilizing the power plant because they don't have the batteries. I just don't see thing continuing to stay that way because Tesla is proving it otherwise.

eta: I think this conversation has run it's course. I understand perfectly what people are saying. I just don't think a company is going to compete with Tesla unless they offer the same things, namely the ability to enable a "tuned" mode. When I ask why manufacturers wouldn't everyone keeps saying "Because ICE's didn't". The fact is electric car companies are and will continue to do so, or they won't be electric car companies.

 

[SquidBonez]

I was on the launch team when the first model Pacifica was built. :lol:

I guess my only question is, how fast is your blender? Your washing machine? How about your hair dryer? How about your vacuum?

There are a bunch of electric motors lying around your house. How many are tweaked out?

There's a passion for tuning ICE motors that just doesn't exist for electrics. Are you also considering that? I think there's more incentive to mod your car I'm just not sure sure it necessarily translates over to to electrics.

Nobody modifies industrial or practical application ICEs for fun (I'm not going to hop-up my water pump for fun). Cars and appliances are two different things. People DO however modify RC cars and racing drones for better performance, both of which are electric vehicles (albeit small and remote-controlled). Again, I see no reason why we wouldn't modify an electric car.