How Will Electric Vehicles Be Modified in the Future?

[furcifer]

I don't know what the breakdown is now, but if I had to guess it's 80% performance 20% styling when it comes to modification. With EV's it will probably be 90% efficiency/styling and maybe 10% performance.

People will probably look back at EV's and the Tesla Roadster as being the end of performance tuning as a hobby. Electrics just take a lot of fun out of it. Sub 2s 0-60, sub 9 1/4's out of the box, it's not about the cars it's about the reaction times. And it wouldn't take much to program an EV to launch on the greenlight and autopilot the run.

Put this together and you could basically stay in your living room and let your car go to the track by itself. When stuff like this happens, and it's going to happen, it's going to take the wind out of a lot of sails. That's why I think there's going to be some rules imposed or it's going to shift to efficiency and styling in terms of "what the cool kids are doing".

 

[SquidBonez]

At the bottom in fine print.

It doesn't say that it "might not work" anywhere. The closest thing it says is results may vary.

They aren't doing anything with the module that you and I or the factory can't do.

Well sure the factory CAN tune the cars to have a bit more power, but they don't. That's why this module exists - for the people willing to trade range/wear for speed.

And every car could run a 150hp shot of NOS, but most people don't do it.

Because NOS is becoming irrelevant as it is. NOS started losing popularity when turbos/supercharger kits began to become common. But that wasn't my point. I'm saying that manufactures still tune their cars a bit conservatively.

The type of gains you get with a shot of NOS are way more than you can hope to get out of an electric.

Not without swapping components. But for this SPECIFIC point, I was talking purely from a software standpoint. Adding a shot of NOS is a physical modification the the drivetrain. I'm comparing it more to a reflash on an ICE. Because that's essentially what this module is - a reprogrammer. It's just a different way of going about it.

Expensive new cars or cheaper old cars people don't tend to do this. And yet you keep proposing this as if they will.

Anybody who even so much as flashes a tune into their ECU has to go into it knowing that they are trading engine life for engine performance. This is no different. Every time someone gets a reflash, they accept the risk. And that happens often.

Well like I say, the disclaimer at the bottom is telling me it's marginal at best.

Yeah well the actual ad claims to take the 90D from 410hp and 487ft/lbs to 456hp and 584ft/lbs and take the P90D from 456hp and 713ft/lbs to 523hp and 856ft/lbs. Not exactly "marginal". Sure, that's what the company who is trying to sell a product is saying, but I'm more inclined to believe actual numbers than your hunch. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

eta: thinking about this, I wonder if capacitors might be the way to go? They seem suited to this type of application where you want high discharge rates and don't care about capacity, or longevity. This seems very interesting....

I've heard that suggested before. Perhaps have some capacitors for a short burst of extra power - maybe the electric equivalent of a shot of NOS!

 

[furcifer]

It doesn't say that it "might not work" anywhere. The closest thing it says is results may vary.

lol, what do you think "results may vary" means?

That's legal speak for "may or may not work". You're not a newb so just don't..



[q

Well sure the factory CAN tune the cars to have a bit more power, but they don't. That's why this module exists - for the people willing to trade range/wear for speed.

Yes, but there's a limit to what people are willing to sacrifice. And you haven't shown me anything beyond what Tesla offers that might incentive people to purchase aftermarket "modules".

Because NOS is becoming irrelevant as it is. NOS started losing popularity when turbos/supercharger kits began to become common. But that wasn't my point. I'm saying that manufactures still tune their cars a bit conservatively.

Because with a TC you don'r ride the failure point. With EV's much beyond what Tesla is giving customers does just that.

Not without swapping components. But for this SPECIFIC point, I was talking purely from a software standpoint. Adding a shot of NOS is a physical modification the the drivetrain. I'm comparing it more to a reflash on an ICE. Because that's essentially what this module is - a reprogrammer. It's just a different way of going about it.

But it's not when the engine is +90% efficient to begin with.

Anybody who even so much as flashes a tune into their ECU has to go into it knowing that they are trading engine life for engine performance. This is no different. Every time someone gets a reflash, they accept the risk. And that happens often.

But again, there's a difference between knowing a $100 piston might explode and a $10K battery might explode.

You continue to operate under this premise and I'd say it's faulty.

Yeah well the actual ad claims to take the 90D from 410hp and 487ft/lbs to 456hp and 584ft/lbs and take the P90D from 456hp and 713ft/lbs to 523hp and 856ft/lbs. Not exactly "marginal". Sure, that's what the company who is trying to sell a product is saying, but I'm more inclined to believe actual numbers than your hunch. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

BUT THE FACTORY FLASH IS 518hp!

That's marginal to the extent I don't think you can even measure 518 vs 523hp

I've heard that suggested before. Perhaps have some capacitors for a short burst of extra power - maybe the electric equivalent of a shot of NOS!

Yah, even better. A sub system that boosts voltage. Hey we may be onto something here...

 

[furcifer]

Honestly that's the best thing I've heard so far. Running capacitors inline to boost output at the push of a button. Love it. When the torque curve falls off, bam, hit the switch and dump the caps.

 

[SquidBonez]

lol, what do you think "results may vary" means?

That's legal speak for "may or may not work". You're not a newb so just don't..

There's a big difference between "might not work" and "results may vary". They tell you "results may vary" when you buy medication, doesn't mean it doesn't work lol

Guess we'll have to wait and see to be sure.

And you haven't shown me anything beyond what Tesla offers that might incentive people to purchase aftermarket "modules".

More power.

Because with a TC you don'r ride the failure point. With EV's much beyond what Tesla is giving customers does just that.

Not necessarily. The cars could probably put out a decent bit more power with stock components, it's just that range (and in the case of Tesla, heat, which they already struggle with stock) would be an issue.

But it's not when the engine is +90% efficient to begin with.

If you supply the motor with more power it will become more powerful. That's just what this module does. It's not about getting more power through efficiency gains it's simply getting more current into the motor.

But again, there's a difference between knowing a $100 piston might explode and a $10K battery might explode.

That's why you have to either A: get higher rated components to prevent that or B: keep your tune within reasonable limits. And not to be nitpick-y but if a piston fails inside an engine, chances are it's gonna damage a lot more than just the piston lol

BUT THE FACTORY FLASH IS 518hp!

For which car? Because both the 90D and P90D have under well 500 stock. Again the 90D has 410hp stock and the P90D has 456hp.
That's an 11% and 15% increase respectively, all from just a software module.

Honestly that's the best thing I've heard so far. Running capacitors inline to boost output at the push of a button. Love it. When the torque curve falls off, bam, hit the switch and dump the caps.

Now you're getting why I've made threads like this in the past. Gives people ideas!

 

[Hillhater]

No matter what power the official Tesla “factory Flash” gives you, ,...owners of P90D level cars will have to pay $20,000 to get that “Flash” ...because it requires more than just software changes !
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-ludicroud-p90dl-p100d-performance-upgrade/
That is where aftermarket “flashers” will win customers, by avoiding the Factory “upselling” of a package.
https://hsrmotors.com/products/driveunits/large/sportplus

 

[Hillhater]

People will probably look back at EV's and the Tesla Roadster as being the end of performance tuning as a hobby. Electrics just take a lot of fun out of it. Sub 2s 0-60, sub 9 1/4's out of the box, .....

You are completely ignoring owners who may want performance that lasts more than a1/4 mile.
There are whole clubs devoted to “Track Days”, “Adventure Rally’s” Hill climbs, Gymkahana’s, Speed tests, (Texas Mile), and even just Caravan Touring. !
EV owners are participating in of all these motor activities
All these activities benefit from modifications to improve performance, endurance, torque ( for towing) top speed, etc etc...none of which are optimised in a showroom spec vehicle.

 

[furcifer]

People will probably look back at EV's and the Tesla Roadster as being the end of performance tuning as a hobby. Electrics just take a lot of fun out of it. Sub 2s 0-60, sub 9 1/4's out of the box, .....

You are completely ignoring owners who may want performance that lasts more than a1/4 mile.
There are whole clubs devoted to “Track Days”, “Adventure Rally’s” Hill climbs, Gymkahana’s, Speed tests, (Texas Mile), and even just Caravan Touring. !
EV owners are participating in of all these motor activities
All these activities benefit from modifications to improve performance, endurance, torque ( for towing) top speed, etc etc...none of which are optimised in a showroom spec vehicle.

No, you seem to not be able to distinguish between performance and efficiency.

 

[furcifer]

No matter what power the official Tesla “factory Flash” gives you, ,...owners of P90D level cars will have to pay $20,000 to get that “Flash” ...because it requires more than just software changes !
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-ludicroud-p90dl-p100d-performance-upgrade/
That is where aftermarket “flashers” will win customers, by avoiding the Factory “upselling” of a package.
https://hsrmotors.com/products/driveunits/large/sportplus

Correct, because they have insane mode. And nobody is going to pay for an outside player to get ludicrous mode.

 

[furcifer]

There's a big difference between "might not work" and "results may vary". They tell you "results may vary" when you buy medication, doesn't mean it doesn't work lol

No there isn't.

And there aren't any cam shafts or headers that come with these warnings. It's all snake oil, but obviously some people don't know the difference.

 

[Hillhater]

People will probably look back at EV's and the Tesla Roadster as being the end of performance tuning as a hobby. Electrics just take a lot of fun out of it. Sub 2s 0-60, sub 9 1/4's out of the box, .....

You are completely ignoring owners who may want performance that lasts more than a1/4 mile.
There are whole clubs devoted to “Track Days”, “Adventure Rally’s” Hill climbs, Gymkahana’s, Speed tests, (Texas Mile), and even just Caravan Touring. !
EV owners are participating in of all these motor activities
All these activities benefit from modifications to improve performance, endurance, torque ( for towing) top speed, etc etc...none of which are optimised in a showroom spec vehicle.

No, you seem to not be able to distinguish between performance and efficiency.

Efficiency has nothing to do with performance in this context.

 

[Hillhater]

No matter what power the official Tesla “factory Flash” gives you, ,...owners of P90D level cars will have to pay $20,000 to get that “Flash” ...because it requires more than just software changes !
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-ludicroud-p90dl-p100d-performance-upgrade/
That is where aftermarket “flashers” will win customers, by avoiding the Factory “upselling” of a package.
https://hsrmotors.com/products/driveunits/large/sportplus

Correct, because they have insane mode. And nobody is going to pay for an outside player to get ludicrous mode.

But they want more than insane mode offers....
Why would they pay Tesla $20k when they can get even more performance for less $$$s from an aftermarket tuning shop ?

 

[Punx0r]

I have 2 textbooks, Mechanics of Materials by Hibbler, and Mechanisms And Dynamics Of Machinery Ed: 4 by Mabie. They're for a 3rd Automotive Engineering class in stress analysis and machine dynamics.

What are you basing your opinion on?

From the amazon description the second title looks to be chiefly kinematics but Mechanics of Materials ought to be worth reading. I dont' know how in depth it is, but scanning the contents page I'd recommend a specific look at:

1.6 Allowable Stress Design
1.7 Limit State Design (note "reliability" and "durability")
3.8 Failure of Materials Due to Creep and Fatigue (note "endurance limit" and (hopefully) sensitivity to material and environmental conditions)
4.7 Stress Concentrations
10.7 Theories of Failure
Section 13 "Buckling of Columns" ought to highlight the trap of buckling failure occuring well below compressive yield point

None of this goes directly to the heart of why you seem to think a component designed to utilise 99% of its material strength will be as durable and reliable as one at 10%. Or why you think every one of a mass produced component is gauranteed to withstand SWL x SF in all conditions, forever. Or why you think furniture rated for domestic use is stronger and more durable than that rated for heavy commercial use, as the later will "collapse under it's own weight". But it's a start.

I would assume though that you likely don't make and use much stuff as a hobbyist/DIYer and that you must be one of the few people who buys costed-down version of parts or products and is ultimately happy with them. Otherwise your own life experience would have illustrated some of the advantages (and disadvantages) of the "Victorian" method of engineering.

 

[Hillhater]

I might add that any practical engineer, should should ensure they are familiar with the concepts of “Value Engineering”.

 

[Punx0r]

I'd say many people are painfully familar with value engineering...

 

[furcifer]

But they want more than insane mode offers....
Why would they pay Tesla $20k when they can get even more performance for less $$$s from an aftermarket tuning shop ?

Obviously, but it seems unlikely to happen. Who is going to buy a "performance" battery from a third party that doesn't come with a warranty? And again this presumes a third party can get the materials to make the battery, which at the moment doesn't seem likely.

When you start multiplying low probabilities you get very low probabilities. But time will tell. If Duracell or Interstate get into the lithium car fuel cell business things might change.

 

[furcifer]

None of this goes directly to the heart of why you seem to think a component designed to utilise 99% of its material strength will be as durable and reliable as one at 10%. Or why you think every one of a mass produced component is gauranteed to withstand SWL x SF in all conditions, forever. Or why you think furniture rated for domestic use is stronger and more durable than that rated for heavy commercial use, as the later will "collapse under it's own weight". But it's a start.

Avoiding the questions noted.

First you're making stuff up. Nothing is designed to utilize 99% of it's "material strength". I believe you used nominal strength before which is typically part of calculating dead loads and not active loads. Anyhow...

I'm going to presume you mean "ultimate" strength, which is the point at which a material fails. Since we're talking cars and drivetrain it's mostly metal, so this would be yield stress, the point where there's no longer elastic deformation.

Stress concentrations, fatigue, etc., things that are known to happen are all part of the design. The factor of safety is an integer multiple of that design intended to account for the unknowns, weathering, damage, improper loading, variation in materials etc.

This is why fractional increases in hp don't require swapping out your Civic drivetrain for one from an F-150 if you want to boost your Honda.

So I don't know what you are talking about. If you could give me an example of where performance modification require a new drive train maybe I could see what you are trying to get at. I suspect maybe back in the early 1900's this may have happened but automotive engineering has advanced considerably since then.

 

[furcifer]

Efficiency has nothing to do with performance in this context.

Perhaps you too could be more specific.

Like I said, modifications that increase efficiency I think are a given. And I can see a whole culture developing around these modifications.

Power mods, as they relate to performance metrics like 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile and top speed are probably going the way of the dinosaur. It doesn't make sense since the factory can offer these optimized to the point there is only marginal improvement at very high cost, and very high risk gained by going to a third party.

You mentioned towing, this is really only limited by the battery right now. It's not like the motor can't handle the torque. The weight and drag just suck up range like there's no tomorrow. I would guess that efficiency, namely aerodynamics, would play the largest role in getting an EV to tow a trailer.

 

[furcifer]

I might add that any practical engineer, should should ensure they are familiar with the concepts of “Value Engineering”.

Value engineering doesn't superseded ASME codes and NHTSA regulations.

It's possible a company will manufacture an EV with a motor capable of making 400hp but will limit it to 250hp by using cheaper components, but it's extremely unlikely in my opinion. For one, it would be cheaper to use a motor that is capable of 250hp and utilizing it to the full potential. It would be pretty dumb to look at cost saving measures but overlook the motor. So it's not realistic, it's just wishful thinking.

ICE cars were usually designed to fit multiple engine options, making swaps possible. EV's don't appear to be designed this way. To me this suggests that performance models aren't as likely to survive in the same way we see them today. Instead, it's easier to offer "performance modes" by building all the cars coming down the line the same way internally; same motor, same inverter, same cables, same battery, but using different body panels, materials, wheels, tires and paint to differentiate standard models from sport models.

I see some liability issues with this assumption as well. Making a car with a motor that can handle 400hp but undersizing the battery and cables to save a few bucks, and then waiting for people to flash the PEM and burn their families alive when it fails could be considered negligent. A good design would spec the motor to the cables, inverter and battery, regardless of how it is marketed.

But yah, I agree if this does happen tuners will jump all over it to exploit potential engineers didn't or couldn't utilize. That's one thing that will never change.

 

[Hillhater]

But they want more than insane mode offers....
Why would they pay Tesla $20k when they can get even more performance for less $$$s from an aftermarket tuning shop ?

Obviously, but it seems unlikely to happen. Who is going to buy a "performance" battery from a third party that doesn't come with a warranty? And again this presumes a third party can get the materials to make the battery, which at the moment doesn't seem likely. ......

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

 

[Hillhater]

Efficiency has nothing to do with performance in this context.

Perhaps you too could be more specific.

No, it is obvious !

You mentioned towing, this is really only limited by the battery right now. ......

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

 

[Hillhater]

I might add that any practical engineer, should should ensure they are familiar with the concepts of “Value Engineering”.

.

It's possible a company will manufacture an EV with a motor capable of making 400hp but will limit it to 250hp by using cheaper components, but it's extremely unlikely in my opinion. For one, it would be cheaper to use a motor that is capable of 250hp and utilizing it to the full potential. It would be pretty dumb to look at cost saving measures but overlook the motor. So it's not realistic, it's just wishful thinking.
........

I see some liability issues with this assumption as well. Making a car with a motor that can handle 400hp but undersizing the battery and cables to save a few bucks, and then waiting for people to flash the PEM and burn their families alive when it fails could be considered negligent. A good design would spec the motor to the cables, inverter and battery, regardless of how it is marketed.
.

None of that is related to “Value Engineering”
....its just “Cost Reduction”

 

[SquidBonez]

No there isn't.

You really are just arguing for the sake of arguing now, huh?

 

[SquidBonez]

But they want more than insane mode offers....
Why would they pay Tesla $20k when they can get even more performance for less $$$s from an aftermarket tuning shop ?

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. "Want more power? Buy the Limited Exclusive POWER-DRIVE Premium Anniversary trim!" Or just buy an aftermarket reflash for a couple hundred bucks. This will almost certainly continue on to electric cars, where cars with the same motor(s) and batteries have different performance between trims.

That is where aftermarket “flashers” will win customers, by avoiding the Factory “upselling” of a package.
https://hsrmotors.com/products/driveunits/large/sportplus

I read that link, something piqued my interest:

"Units which pass our examinations then qualify to be modified for greatly improved performance. This package has a peak power to weight ratio of over 2.18 HP per pound, and a whopping 650 Nm of torque. Top speed is also improved significantly to a new maximum of 18,000 RPMs."

I wonder what they do to it to gain extra performance. Just software or...?

Anyway, I agree with you. Aftermarket controllers will also allow the owner much more control and fine-tuning over the motors to specifically set it up to a modder's liking.

 

[Punx0r]

Avoiding the questions noted.

What questions?

First you're making stuff up. Nothing is designed to utilize 99% of it's "material strength". I believe you used nominal strength before which is typically part of calculating dead loads and not active loads. Anyhow...

You said:

I would strongly suggest you think about this logically, just for a second. If I build a frame designed to hold 1000lbs, and I load it with 1000lbs. HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

If I load it with 50lbs. HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

If I load it with 1lb HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

If I don't load it at all HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

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.

I'm going to presume you mean "ultimate" strength, which is the point at which a material fails. Since we're talking cars and drivetrain it's mostly metal, so this would be yield stress, the point where there's no longer elastic deformation.

Please don't, I know what UTS is. With a few exceptions most parts will already be deemed to have failed if the yield point is reached, not at UTS. Moreover I can't imagine anyone designing a drivetrain component would use limiting stress = yield. That's going to be far too high for a component subject to HCF.

Stress concentrations, fatigue, etc., things that are known to happen are all part of the design. The factor of safety is an integer multiple of that design intended to account for the unknowns, weathering, damage, improper loading, variation in materials etc.

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.

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.

This is why fractional increases in hp don't require swapping out your Civic drivetrain for one from an F-150 if you want to boost your Honda.

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.

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...

So I don't know what you are talking about. If you could give me an example of where performance modification require a new drive train maybe I could see what you are trying to get at. I suspect maybe back in the early 1900's this may have happened but automotive engineering has advanced considerably since then.

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.