[SexyBeast]

Anyone see this Sandy Munro video of taking ID4 motor apart?
Seems like VW has made a more efficient EV motor than Tesla is some ways (VW got rid of oil pump, oil filter, etc.) Other start ups will be inspired/copy.
Curious to hear thoughts from engineers/mechanics.

 

[mzzyhmd]

Just see the comments of the video you can clearly see no one is acknowledging this and just talking about off topic crap. YT is hugely Tesla biased sadly. Also Sandy in other videos criticized ID.4 pretty badly apparently for no good reason. Like he mentioned something along the line of maybe in Europe they kill people that’s why the front is designed this way. Completely disregarding the fact that this safety feature is to protect people’s life and of course there are way more walking people on the street of EU than US. Yeah, his opinion isn’t consistent but overall I learned a lot from these videos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[adamjcook]

Anyone see this Sandy Munro video of taking ID4 motor apart?
Seems like VW has made a more efficient EV motor than Tesla is some ways (VW got rid of oil pump, oil filter, etc.) Other start ups will be inspired/copy.
Curious to hear thoughts from engineers/mechanics.

In the case you did not see it before, I provided my opinion on Sandy Munro's videos previously here.

I also broached this exact topic the other day on Twitter here.

In short, a vast majority of Munro's "analysis" cannot be relied on at all in my view. The VW ID.4 motor may, in fact, be designed very well, but Murno has zero technical basis to conclude that. The assumption always has to be, absent some very detailed internal knowledge of an automaker's product lifecycle (which he does not have) or obvious quality issues, that the design is optimal for the goals of the vehicle within the marketplace that the automaker in question is targeting.

What Munro can do somewhat competently here, if he elected to do so, would be to throw both motors on a test bench, establish some engineering metrics to measure and drive the motors. It is still somewhat speculative given the systems-level differences of a Tesla Model Y (for example) and a VW ID.4, but it is a considerably more "solid" analysis. It can be pretty much assumed that VW has already performed this type of comparative analysis and will continue to do so (and Tesla undoubtedly will as well, vice-versa).

I see Munro's videos, frankly, as "performance art" and, as someone who is also an engineering educator, I find it supremely frustrating that he basically goes unchallenged on Autoline most especially, but on YouTube and within the EV community more broadly.

Lastly, as an Electrical Engineer myself, it is plainly obvious that he is not competent to analyze electromechanical or electromagnetic systems which are rather opaque compared to the mechanical assemblies he often deals with.

Sincerely,

Adam J. Cook

 

[DaveTC]

I am a mechanical engineer. I do not mind what Sandy Munro says. His viewpoint is often from a manufacturing standpoint -- how can you make it cheaper and eliminate parts. As an end user, that is not that important to me. In some cases, fewer parts can mean better reliability, but I do not think that he has brought up anything significant from an owner standpoint on the ID.4. I think his comments about the motor were encouraging to me. There is no engine, so you want the motor to be well designed.

I do not own an ID.4. I am scoping out my next vehicle. I first bought the VW Passat TDI and they I read about turbo failures. They extended the warranty, so I ended up being fine. I am monitoring this forum so that I am more educated before I buy.

So far, I am leaning strongly towards the ID.4 AWD. His main criticism from my perspective was a basic suspension system. I do not think that I would notice. Sandy loved the Christmas tree connectors under the hood for the Mach E. I cringed when I heard that. He proceeded to break two. Not a big deal, but I have also seen broken Christmas tree holders. I can see using the design on doors, but I second guess the use of the for a periodic maintenance location. I prefer an open layout under the hood like the ID.4. I agree with him about the bad design of a bar over the 12V battery. I do not think he mentioned the capacitive touch buttons all over the place. I can imagine activating the wrong thing a couple of times a trip and swearing a bit. That design gives me the most hesitation.

 

[Dana]

I think Mr Munro's videos are entertaining, but, as he once worked for Ford, I suppose that could cloud his objectivity in his comparisons of the ID.4 with the Mach e. So I was shocked when he seemed to be pointing out some good features that other companies would want to copy in the ID.4 motor/ transmission. But that positive note didn't last long as he also pointed out some burrs that his team had discovered. In one video he raved on and on about how great the frunk feature is in the Mach e - all EVs should have one. I can't help but wonder how much a technician will charge when the frunk has to be removed and reinstalled to access equipment under it for maintenance or repair. Sure, EVs are generally more reliable than ICE vehicles, but some components will develop issues, so maybe VW took the more prudent approach.... I think VW, Ford, and GM, to name just a few companies, are designing some pretty good EVs. And I'm glad that there are differences in their products. Like why should all EVs have frunks, panoramic roofs, large wheels, huge center screens?

 

[adamjcook]

I am a mechanical engineer. I do not mind what Sandy Munro says. His viewpoint is often from a manufacturing standpoint -- how can you make it cheaper and eliminate parts. As an end user, that is not that important to me. In some cases, fewer parts can mean better reliability, but I do not think that he has brought up anything significant from an owner standpoint on the ID.4. I think his comments about the motor were encouraging to me. There is no engine, so you want the motor to be well designed.

Respectfully, though, Munro has no technical foundation to make claims of "too many parts" without also having intimate knowledge of the internal automaker product lifecycle, any knowledge of the internal tradeoff conversations that happened within the automaker at design time or any alternative design analysis (which he cannot competently do without having the prior elements). Munro was simply not, "in the room", both figuratively and literally.

As just one example, during the ID.4 motor teardown video, Munro pulled out what appeared to be the PCB for the motor drive unit and claimed that there was an unusually high number of screws for the PCB. Yet, what he did not recognize or mention is that in high-frequency switching applications, the correct number and position of screws also serves as a electromagnetic resonance dampening measure (not just for structure). Additionally, he struggles with basic electromagnetic and electromechanical terminology throughout often using incorrect or invented terms.

I could on for days on analyzing the inappropriate conclusions and inconsistencies throughout that video, but I believe the example I cited is immediately disqualifying in terms of his competence on analyzing that motor and drive subsystem.

In another ID.4 video, he baselessly criticized VW engineers for being "luddites" for not adopting a Sabic thermoplastic design (to reduce vehicle weight) for the battery enclosure instead of the aluminum enclosure that, mind you, all of the other EV manufacturers use, including Tesla.

Perhaps VW did have a preliminary design in which they used a Sabic thermoplastic design for the battery enclosure and then, after unsatisfactory physical testing results, chose an aluminum design.

How would Munro even be aware of whether or not that design and testing process occurred (Sabic has competitors that supply thermoplastic parts to automakers)?

He would not.

Yet, Munro is making authoritative (and insulating to the VW engineers) claims that VW should have embraced this alternative material.

As another example, Munro heavily criticized (complete with over-the-top theatrics) the number of hoses and hose connections in the Ford Mach-E (video here) - preferring that Ford would adopt the Tesla "octovalve" design instead.

Perhaps Ford did have a exact copy of Tesla's "octovalve" design in their vehicle during physical testing in the Mach-E. Perhaps Ford found that the consolidated assembly was not reliable. Or was expensive to manufacture. Or caused negative effects on vehicle repairability from the customer's point-of-view in terms of costs. Or that the design of the thermal subsystem on the Mach-E can be easier to translate across future vehicles and platforms.

Munro cannot possibly answer these fundamental questions because, again, he was not in the room.

For that matter, it is pretty clear to me that Tesla does little-to-no exhaustive physical testing, validation or pre-production on their vehicles so who is really to say that the Tesla "octovalve" design is superior or a benchmark here?

Munro is a Lean process advocate so it is pretty clear why he obsessively focuses on "too many" components, but he does so arbitrarily without the specific product lifecycle knowledge.

His main criticism from my perspective was a basic suspension system. I do not think that I would notice.

I see that as falling more under the heading of Munro performing a car review, no different than the other car reviews out there. Of course, Munro is entitled to his opinion when performing a car review while driving the car, but he again, went too far in criticizing the actual mechanical design of the suspension without having any knowledge of the tradeoffs associated with the design.

Sandy loved the Christmas tree connectors under the hood for the Mach E. I cringed when I heard that. He proceeded to break two. Not a big deal, but I have also seen broken Christmas tree holders. I can see using the design on doors, but I second guess the use of the for a periodic maintenance location. I prefer an open layout under the hood like the ID.4. I agree with him about the bad design of a bar over the 12V battery.

As I have mentioned before, Munro might be able to talk competently about obvious vehicle quality issues that he observes during a teardown or perhaps even component selection characteristics that are broadly accepted by the automotive industry as unreliable. But I hesitate to accept the latter analysis without more internal insight on tradeoff discussions at the automakers in question.

Sincerely,

Adam J. Cook