12V Usage Info? Potentially avenue to adding a couple of miles of range?

[saladman]

Actually, I would think it's a bigger inconvenience to re-engineer the 12v system than to plan ahead for my charging times. Basically what you're proposing is a larger 12v battery, so it could float itself longer when it gets disconnected from shorepower?


I am also in the camp that it's not an inconvenience to master my speed for optimum results. Just like in my airplane, I can choose to go as fast as possible, which also costs me a lot of extra fuel, which means I have to descend, stop, pick up fuel, and resume the trip. Or change my speed for optimum consumption, and remain in the air longer. Each trip gets optimized for the variable I need the most control over.

 

[hpham007]

Dunno about you, but based on the projected 5% battery growth every year (from the last telecon?), a projected 200kWh battery is in my lifetime (~17 years)

I use projected, because Elon projects a lot of things, and most of them don't stick to the projected timeline. Maybe this is the outlier?

If it's 5% a year and we started with 85kWh in 2012, then by around late 2028, we should be at 200kWh. But then again, we're supposed to be at 103kWh at 2015 and we're only at 90kWh which is only 1.5% growth. With 1.5% growth, you're not going to see 200kWh in your lifetime.

 

[Max*]

If it's 5% a year and we started with 85kWh in 2012, then by around late 2028, we should be at 200kWh. But then again, we're supposed to be at 103kWh at 2015 and we're only at 90kWh.

That announcement was made at the last call, it wasn't "we can increase battery capacity by 5% starting 2012". Even if you take 5% every 3 years, still only ~51 years away from now we can have 200kWh. My original comment still holds, [possibly] in my lifetime

 

[Rocky_H]

@wk057:

Quote: “There is no fallacy here. I never said 80 MPH anywhere in my posts. My example was 70+ to 50 MPH”

Heh, and yet you repeated it that slowing must be in your example at least 20mph difference.

Quote: “Unfortunately the reality of things are that slowing down is just not always the answer to more range.”

That is true. When driving slow enough that the base loads are more of a factor than the energy to overcome wind resistance, then that is true, because it extends the use of A/C, etc. as you pointed out below, but you don’t seem to have a good handle on what those speeds are. At highway speeds like 60 and up, yeah, it’s always the wind resistance as the main factor, and slowing does save energy, even with climate running heavily.

Quote: “As some recent evidence, I crossed Fancy Gap four times in the past two weeks (mountain pass in southern VA). It's 7+ miles of steep grade.”

Ah, you’re picking an interesting example here that hides the wind resistance difference. When climbing a steep grade, there is really heavy energy usage to push the weight up the hill, no matter what speed you are going, so the wind resistance DIFFERENCE shows as pretty small, because it’s all swamped by the high energy use at both speeds. These are quite interesting seeing all of the physics factors involved in driving conditions that people usually don’t pay attention to.

Quote: “And while the trip meter is cool, it's never correct and almost always adjusts downward when driving normally.”

Hmm, most people I have seen on this forum and the one at TeslaMotors have found it to be really accurate. I again kind of wonder what you consider “driving normally”.

Quote: “every other car (ICE, PHEV, EREV, etc) I've ever owned I could run the heat, air conditioning, etc and never have to worry about how much energy was being used or could be saved by dropping my speed 5 MPH. I could always get to where I needed to go without question.”

Ha ha! Yes! That’s because those ICE engines are blowing three fourths of their energy out of the tailpipe and the radiator. When things are very wasteful, overall, smaller levels of wastefulness are somewhat hidden, but when you have something that is capable of being very efficient, small inefficiencies show themselves as more noticeable percentages. Sure, you didn’t worry about getting where you were going, because you can always just pull into a station and fill ‘er up, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wasting gas. Even when driving a gas car, I don’t like to go 80 when the speed limit is 80, because the gas mileage just sucks at that speed. I’ll go around 73, because it does help quite a bit, and I noticed that most of the other gas vehicle traffic was going around 75 anyway.

I guess this is always going to be an issue with people who are used to driving gas cars when they try to move to electric. They aren’t used to how they drive having much impact, because the overall wastefulness of the gas engine has hidden it from them. So they just pay to fill the tank, because that’s just the way it is, so they just continue to not know. When seeing that these kinds of driving behaviors matter more in an efficient electric drive train, it’s frustrating to them. It is funny, the mixing of two issues of price versus drive technology. People move from a cheaper gas car to a more expensive electric and then complain that because they paid a lot, it shouldn’t have this issue. But if they had moved from a gas car to a less expensive electric, it would still have exactly the same issue.

Quote: “First, you wont extend range by 5 miles in real world condition by slowing from 78 to 73.”

Not in the first mile, but for a couple hours’ driving, it’ll be more than 5 miles.

Quote: “Next, I don't think replacing the 12V battery is really something all that questionable. You mean to tell me if I made a drop in replacement for the Model S's 12V battery that extended range on long trips by up to ~5 miles and only cost a couple hundred bucks that people wouldn't use it?”

That’s not what I mean by questionable. I’m not questioning if people would use it. It’s about whether substituting to a different type of battery would work right in all conditions, given how the Model S is set up to monitor and use and recharge the type of battery it was designed for.

Quote: “Overall, I really hate it when people assume slowing down is the answer to saving on range. It isn't always and can actually be detrimental in many cases, making it terrible generic advice from people who don't know and explain the caveats.”

But there is a good reason why people say that and it’s applicable. Because the cases where driving slower is detrimental are at very low speeds, like in the 30’s and 40’s. That is when people are driving around town, when they are near a lot more charging opportunities and nearer to home, and are not going for range and long distance, so they’re not talking about or caring about getting extra range. The range discussion comes up when people are traveling longer distances, which is usually on highways, which are higher speeds, where slowing down is always applicable to save energy.

Quote: “So, on topic, I think the idea boils down to this: […]”

Sure, I agree that if such a battery and battery management system could be invented that did those functions in those conditions, then it could benefit.

 

[wk057]

The forum does have this nifty QUOTE feature, btw...

Quote: “There is no fallacy here. I never said 80 MPH anywhere in my posts. My example was 70+ to 50 MPH”

Heh, and yet you repeated it that slowing must be in your example at least 20mph difference.

I never said it "must" be at least 20 MPH anywhere. It was a random arbitrary example where in most conditions would yield an efficiency increase. But yes, you will have to slow an appreciable amount. Again, 5 MPH isn't going to cut it no matter what you say.

Quote: “Unfortunately the reality of things are that slowing down is just not always the answer to more range.”

That is true. When driving slow enough that the base loads are more of a factor than the energy to overcome wind resistance, then that is true, because it extends the use of A/C, etc. as you pointed out below, but you don’t seem to have a good handle on what those speeds are. At highway speeds like 60 and up, yeah, it’s always the wind resistance as the main factor, and slowing does save energy, even with climate running heavily.

Unless you live somewhere that is completely flat, even at 60+ slowing by 5 MPH is not necessarily going to have a benefit.

Quote: “As some recent evidence, I crossed Fancy Gap four times in the past two weeks (mountain pass in southern VA). It's 7+ miles of steep grade.”

Ah, you’re picking an interesting example here that hides the wind resistance difference. When climbing a steep grade, there is really heavy energy usage to push the weight up the hill, no matter what speed you are going, so the wind resistance DIFFERENCE shows as pretty small, because it’s all swamped by the high energy use at both speeds. These are quite interesting seeing all of the physics factors involved in driving conditions that people usually don’t pay attention to.

I'm pointing out yet another example of where slowing down at highway speeds has no significant impact. Not hiding anything anywhere, as I gave the numbers. I'm pretty sure there is still wind resistance at 78 MPH heading up a mountain, given that I'm still alive, I'm pretty sure there was air there. A mountain may be on the extreme end of things, but even a slight grade will outweigh wind resistance and there is a point at which slowing down is more detrimental to usage. That number is much different in the real world than what you would like to believe in the fantasy land of just slowing down as a cure all.

Quote: “And while the trip meter is cool, it's never correct and almost always adjusts downward when driving normally.”

Hmm, most people I have seen on this forum and the one at TeslaMotors have found it to be really accurate. I again kind of wonder what you consider “driving normally”.

It is 100% accurate at telling me what it thinks the range will be based on energy usage over the last 30, 15, or 5 miles. It is 0% accurate at actually telling me how far I'm going to be able to actually make it on my current course.

Driving normally = Not caring what car I'm in, ICE, EV, whatever, and driving with the flow of traffic, preferably in the fastest lane of travel, all while being 100% comfortable inside the car regardless of the outside conditions (ie: running the heat or A/C as needed).

Quote: “every other car (ICE, PHEV, EREV, etc) I've ever owned I could run the heat, air conditioning, etc and never have to worry about how much energy was being used or could be saved by dropping my speed 5 MPH. I could always get to where I needed to go without question.”

Ha ha! Yes! That’s because those ICE engines are blowing three fourths of their energy out of the tailpipe and the radiator. When things are very wasteful, overall, smaller levels of wastefulness are somewhat hidden, but when you have something that is capable of being very efficient, small inefficiencies show themselves as more noticeable percentages. Sure, you didn’t worry about getting where you were going, because you can always just pull into a station and fill ‘er up, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wasting gas. Even when driving a gas car, I don’t like to go 80 when the speed limit is 80, because the gas mileage just sucks at that speed. I’ll go around 73, because it does help quite a bit, and I noticed that most of the other gas vehicle traffic was going around 75 anyway.

I guess this is always going to be an issue with people who are used to driving gas cars when they try to move to electric. They aren’t used to how they drive having much impact, because the overall wastefulness of the gas engine has hidden it from them. So they just pay to fill the tank, because that’s just the way it is, so they just continue to not know. When seeing that these kinds of driving behaviors matter more in an efficient electric drive train, it’s frustrating to them. It is funny, the mixing of two issues of price versus drive technology. People move from a cheaper gas car to a more expensive electric and then complain that because they paid a lot, it shouldn’t have this issue. But if they had moved from a gas car to a less expensive electric, it would still have exactly the same issue.

Nothing you say above invalidates my point, and you even strengthen it. On average, people don't drive EVs. The average person drives a 5 year old ICE car with 60k+ miles that gets maybe 20 MPG. This is reality. These people get where they have to go, fill up when they need to fill up, and don't care about efficiency. They don't have range anxiety. They drive the speed they want to drive and simply pay for the gas to do it. Simple as that. If they happen to run out of fuel any towing service in the country can cart them out a gallon of gas for $50 and have them on their way. You won't find anyone saying, "Man I need to slow down 5 MPH so I can make it to the next gas station." It just doesn't happen.

So again, nothing you say invalidates my original point: every other car (ICE, PHEV, EREV, etc) I've ever owned I could run the heat, air conditioning, etc and never have to worry about how much energy was being used or could be saved by dropping my speed 5 MPH. I could always get to where I needed to go without question.

Quote: “First, you wont extend range by 5 miles in real world condition by slowing from 78 to 73.”

Not in the first mile, but for a couple hours’ driving, it’ll be more than 5 miles.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose. Unfortunately my real world data disagrees with you as well, and I trust my data much more than you.

Quote: “Next, I don't think replacing the 12V battery is really something all that questionable. You mean to tell me if I made a drop in replacement for the Model S's 12V battery that extended range on long trips by up to ~5 miles and only cost a couple hundred bucks that people wouldn't use it?”

That’s not what I mean by questionable. I’m not questioning if people would use it. It’s about whether substituting to a different type of battery would work right in all conditions, given how the Model S is set up to monitor and use and recharge the type of battery it was designed for.

*scratches head*

Quote: “Overall, I really hate it when people assume slowing down is the answer to saving on range. It isn't always and can actually be detrimental in many cases, making it terrible generic advice from people who don't know and explain the caveats.”

But there is a good reason why people say that and it’s applicable. Because the cases where driving slower is detrimental are at very low speeds, like in the 30’s and 40’s. That is when people are driving around town, when they are near a lot more charging opportunities and nearer to home, and are not going for range and long distance, so they’re not talking about or caring about getting extra range. The range discussion comes up when people are traveling longer distances, which is usually on highways, which are higher speeds, where slowing down is always applicable to save energy.

Yet I gave several scenarios where slowing down at highway speeds does NOT save energy... yet you still say "always." This is why people end up stranded in EVs. Bogus advice like "just slow down" that has no qualifiers or real data behind it.

Quote: “So, on topic, I think the idea boils down to this: […]”

Sure, I agree that if such a battery and battery management system could be invented that did those functions in those conditions, then it could benefit.

At least we agree on something. lol.

 

[David_Cary]

Just thought I'd join in the anti-wk crowd. Obviously nothing personal - not meant that way. Just think you are way off here.

Just went from Myrtle Beach to Raleigh. 200 miles. Left with 235 rated (70D) and arrived with 28. Thought rated was pretty close. Went roughly the speed limit. Up to 73 in a 70 but never over 75 for any stretch. There are stretches of 45 that I mostly did 55. AC was on and comfortable.

For total range, the difference between 65 and 70mph is at least 10 miles - on a 70 no less. Roughly - I can go 250 miles at 65 mph and 220 at 70 mph. (Just checked - at 90 deg with a/c on it is 250 at 65 mph and 229 at 70 mph - so I was pretty darn close to Tesla's numbers) Just my rough feel - but way way more than 5 miles. Not sure what Tesla range "calculator" would say but 5 mph is way more than 5 miles total range.

Honestly, saying that 5 mph speed difference doesn't add up to 5 miles total range is ludicrous and destroys all your credibility on anything to do with range. It flies in the face of reality. Maybe a P85D is different but I really doubt it.

The AC load is so small on a long journey that your argument about extended time with HVAC loads at lower speeds is an issue is laughable.

 

[Dave EV]

First, you wont extend range by 5 miles in real world condition by slowing from 78 to 73.

Maybe because of your driving style you don't see much of a difference, but in a half-way controlled test, 5 mph at those speeds should result in around 15 miles more range in a 85 kWh Model S.

Let's say you can only go 200 miles at 78 mph. 205 miles at 73 mph is only a 2.5% improvement in range, but you've reduced speeds by over 6%.

Aero drag is the dominant factor at highway speeds (ballpark 50% total energy use) and velocity from 73-78 mph increases drag 12% or so which would increase energy use by 6%. (A rough rule of thumb is that if you change your speed by X% at typical highway speeds you will decrease or increase your range by the appx the same percentage.)

Now if aero drag at highway speeds was only 20% of total energy use on the vehicle I might concede the point, but it's not.

 

[wk057]

Maybe because of your driving style you don't see much of a difference, but in a half-way controlled test, 5 mph at those speeds should result in around 15 miles more range in a 85 kWh Model S.

Let's say you can only go 200 miles at 78 mph. 205 miles at 73 mph is only a 2.5% improvement in range, but you've reduced speeds by over 6%.

Aero drag is the dominant factor at highway speeds (ballpark 50% total energy use) and velocity from 73-78 mph increases drag 12% or so which would increase energy use by 6%. (A rough rule of thumb is that if you change your speed by X% at typical highway speeds you will decrease or increase your range by the appx the same percentage.)

Now if aero drag at highway speeds was only 20% of total energy use on the vehicle I might concede the point, but it's not.

Driving styling comes into play when cruising at a set speed?

I think you're using broad generalizations about wind resistance and not actual data. Plus you're also assuming no actual wind in any direction on perfectly flat land, which is never the case.

As an example, I've seen graphs of range predictions that have been thrown around by Tesla and others before. They show this substantial range increase by dropping a few MPH as well. You know what? They're garbage. According to one such graph posted by Tesla, slowing to 65 MPH increases the P85D's range to 285 miles. LOL.

I've attempted to get close to this number on many occasions and it's just complete BS. My best ever with cruise at 65 MPH the whole way came out to ~254 miles (extrapolated out based on usage from 100% to 47%) for a full charge, a full 30 miles less under ideal conditions. I did the exact same trip in the same direction a couple of days later in nearly identical conditions at 70 MPH. Estimated range from 100% came to 253 miles. At my normal driving speed of 78 MPH (in 70 MPH zones, with flow of traffic usually) the same trip had an estimated range of 241 miles on 100%. So dropping from 78 to 65 would add ~13 miles of range, literally 1 mile per MPH dropped.

And this is consistent, as I've done this leg quite a few times and have been within a 2% margin each time when not using HVAC.

So, sorry, in the real world the numbers people talk about for range estimates just don't work out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Just thought I'd join in the anti-wk crowd. Obviously nothing personal - not meant that way. Just think you are way off here.

Just went from Myrtle Beach to Raleigh. 200 miles. Left with 235 rated (70D) and arrived with 28. Thought rated was pretty close. Went roughly the speed limit. Up to 73 in a 70 but never over 75 for any stretch. There are stretches of 45 that I mostly did 55. AC was on and comfortable.

For total range, the difference between 65 and 70mph is at least 10 miles - on a 70 no less. Roughly - I can go 250 miles at 65 mph and 220 at 70 mph. (Just checked - at 90 deg with a/c on it is 250 at 65 mph and 229 at 70 mph - so I was pretty darn close to Tesla's numbers) Just my rough feel - but way way more than 5 miles. Not sure what Tesla range "calculator" would say but 5 mph is way more than 5 miles total range.

Honestly, saying that 5 mph speed difference doesn't add up to 5 miles total range is ludicrous and destroys all your credibility on anything to do with range. It flies in the face of reality. Maybe a P85D is different but I really doubt it.

The AC load is so small on a long journey that your argument about extended time with HVAC loads at lower speeds is an issue is laughable.

Missed this post somehow.

Myrtle Beach to Raleigh is pretty flat for one (~300 ft elevation change?), and you definitely weren't driving with traffic at "roughly the speed limit." EV Trip planner actually says this trip will take 14 rated miles more than actual distance, which is probably about right.

I have real world data that shows that a 5 MPH difference from the normal flow of traffic doesn't always add 5 miles of range (almost never does), so you can just stop right there with the stabs at *my* credibility until you have data to prove otherwise.

And you obviously have no idea how much power the HVAC uses based on your last sentence. lol.

But by all means, try that 250 mile trip in your 70 on real roads at 65 MPH. Can I be there to take pics of the tow truck?

 

[David99]

Slowing down "a mile an hour or two" in the real world is not always useful anyway. You have to drop speed significantly for a significant increase in efficiency. The difference between 65 and 70 MPH is not all that significant. The difference between 70 and 55 MPH is.

In your original post you suggest a 1% increase in range. But here you say a 6.5% difference (between 70 and 65 mph) is "not at all significant"?

 

[David_Cary]

You live at the foothills of a mountain range. Most people do not. On that trip, I passed as many cars as passed me - by roughly the speed limit - I meant about 5-10 over. Raleigh is 350 above sea level so you were very close.

But here is a thought. You drive through far more elevation changes than average - agreed? On the least efficient Model S made - also agreed? So perhaps your reality doesn't reflect other driver's reality?

My car gets almost exactly what Tesla's calculator says it does. You could argue my speedometer is off or I may like the a/c set at 77 or my tires are over pressure or I'm just lucky - always have a tail wind. Those might hold more water than 5 mph doesn't make a difference in range especially at 70 vs 75.

 

[gavine]

I find the range meter on the dash to be VERY accurate. The only time I find it inaccurate is on a 100% charge when the range doesn't drop at all for the first 6 or 7 miles. Once the range starts drooping, it is accurate again.

 

[Andyw2100]

So, on topic, I think the idea boils down to this:

A 12V battery drop in replacement that does everything needed to do what I described in the first post on its own without user interaction or any other connections to the vehicle besides the 12V +/- posts.

The unit would be able to determine when the DC-DC is enabled based on power flow. The hard part would be getting it to know when the car was charging so it could charge from the car's DC-DC at this time and not while the car is in use. For this I'd figure an accelerometer/gyro/magnetometer could be used to figure out when the car has been stationary for an extended period with the DC-DC enabled and if needed charge itself at that time since the car is likely charging.

The logic could get a little more sophisticated, like it could increase it's output voltage to the point where the DC-DC isn't being used, measure load, and guestimate if the car is being charged or not based on the load it sees then vs what it normally sees when in motion (unplugged).

I figure it could have a single optional input wire that ties to the car's accessory system to know for sure when the car is on vs when the DC-DC is on while charging the main pack, as well as something like a bluetooth interface for definitively telling it to charge now before a trip.

Should all be able to be done in a lighter package than a normal 12V lead acid battery too.

Might be a fun project to add to my TODO list.

If you were to come up with a battery like this, isn't it possible Tesla might be interested in it themselves? I'd think they'd be interested not only because of the range improvement, but also because it would solve the problem they have yet to solve with 12V batteries needing frequent replacement.

 

[okashira]

I want to bring this thread back. I think there is some range and efficiency to be gained with some modifications to the 12v system on Tesla's, IMHO.

First, a lithium pack will improve 12v system efficiency by 45% or so. Lead acid suffers from poor efficiency due to:
---Self discharge. Lead acid batteries suffer lots of self discharge and must be always be maintained and recharged. In an ICE car, this happens naturally. Every-time the car is driven the alternator produces ~14.4V recharging the battery when the car is run.
--------> this is fine and all for an ICE car. They hardly notice it. But most lead acid self discharge happens from 100% SoC. Every-time the car is run, the battery is charged to 100%, thus it's almost always self-discharging at the maximum rate. only a few % SoC is needed to start the car, so a crappy lead acid almost always does the job.
---Discharge Efficiency. Lead acid suffers from poor columbic efficiency; around 50% for a typical automobile loading. Lithium, on the other hand, is nearly 100% columbic efficient.

Furthermore, in a Model S, or almost any EV, all of the 12V energy comes from a DC/DC converter from the 400Volt battery pack. This in itself causes a loss of energy. Converting the 12v lead acid battery to lithium will also benefit here. Since there is less self discharge, and less columbic loss, less energy is needed from the DC/DC, thus less DC/DC losses to begin with. Double win!

To further reduce dependence on the DC/DC, solar panels could be added to the frunk, roof (non-pano only!) and hatch. These, combined with a 12V charging circuit could significantly reduce or perhaps even eliminate the dependence on the 400V-->12V DC/DC by charging the 12V battery during driving and while parked.

Finally, a lithium 12v battery would be lighter then a lead acid for the same capacity!

 

[EVCarGUy]

Self discharge. Lead acid batteries suffer lots of self discharge and must be always be maintained and recharged

Do you understand that in a Tesla, the 12V battery is "maintained and recharged" multiple times per day because the electronics, which never fully shut off, drain the battery until the contactors for the main battery engage and the DC-DC inverter charges the 12v battery back up? Self-discharge is far away from being any sort of concern in a Tesla (or, in reality, any ICE car that's driven once a month or so).

I park in a garage. Solar panels would do nothing to offload the 12V battery. The Sun doesn't shine at night while the the vampire drain is putting the 12v battery through one or more charging cycles.

 

[Nietschy]

That announcement was made at the last call, it wasn't "we can increase battery capacity by 5% starting 2012". Even if you take 5% every 3 years, still only ~51 years away from now we can have 200kWh. My original comment still holds, [possibly] in my lifetime

you think to linear. it will be expanding exponential not too far away.

 

[Stiction]

Solar panels would probably add a lot of weight. For sure a lot of expense.
They would have to be very carefully made to not trip the laminar flow over the car and increase drag.

I

 

[roblab]

I appreciated the common sense solution to getting another tiny percent of range out of the car. Slow down 2 mph. Some folks either don't get it, or think it's a cost issue. No. If you want range, get a bigger battery, and drive slower.

But why? The supercharger infrastructure is growing daily. Yes, there are places where the distance is too far even for my 90D, but there are public chargers, RV parks, motels with 14-50 outlets, etc., etc. We are not talking hydrogen. This is electricity. I drove to Canada and back before there were any superchargers (Oct. 2012). With a standard 85.

The problem seems to be that people want to buy a 60, and then want 300 miles of range AND superchargers every 100 miles. For $35,000. Sigh....

 

[jcaspar]

According to the Tesla calculator, slowing from 70mph to 65 in a 90D will increase your range 27 miles, a 10% increase. Extrapolating from this, a 2 mph slowdown from 70 mph should increase range by 10 miles.

Model S | Tesla

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I appreciated the common sense solution to getting another tiny percent of range out of the car. Slow down 2 mph. Some folks either don't get it, or think it's a cost issue. No. If you want range, get a bigger battery, and drive slower.

But why? The supercharger infrastructure is growing daily. Yes, there are places where the distance is too far even for my 90D, but there are public chargers, RV parks, motels with 14-50 outlets, etc., etc. We are not talking hydrogen. This is electricity. I drove to Canada and back before there were any superchargers (Oct. 2012). With a standard 85.

The problem seems to be that people want to buy a 60, and then want 300 miles of range AND superchargers every 100 miles. For $35,000. Sigh....

It doesn't matter why he wants to do it. He's a serious Model S hacker and there are other hackers who I'm sure would want to have a serious technical discussion and help him do it. So, please, leave them alone to get on with it.