# of moving parts in EV vs ICE

[anonymouse]

If this guy is vaguely correct:
20 moving parts in Tesla drivetrain
2000+ moving parts in typical ICE vehicle drivetrain
… I wonder how many in a Taycan drivetrain.

I bet, given the service bills (first year, Tesla: £0, Taycan £400-£1500 depending on OPC appetite/attitude) that a Taycan is a fair way up that scale.

Sometimes, especially when the software in my Taycan fails for the n+1th time, I just wish Porsche had hired 10 people from Tesla to sort out the tech and keep the engineering simple; and left the rest of their team to focus on sustaining the incredibly good road handling.

Sponsored

 

[W1NGE]

All EVs have a small amount of moving parts and depends on the configuration / options added when it comes to the Taycan.

Once upon a fairy tale we all assumed less parts less servicing less cost....that ain't true as dealerships have an infrastructure to protect.

 

[plamichigan]

This is a recurring internet claim, and one that is deeply logically challenged.

First, electric cars have thousands and thousands of parts...just like gasoline cars. Most of the parts are nearly the same (or exactly the same). Seats, tires, windows, motors and sensors (I mean the motors that do things like move seats, windows, wipers, etc.)

The big difference is the drivetrain and fueling system (where the "fuel" is electrical energy for one, and chemical for the other). For both of these types of cars there are lots and lots of parts.

And, stay with me now, they all move. It's a car. Some move within the car, some move along with the car, some move when touched or activated.

If you think there aren't moving parts in an EV, see this video of the dis-assembly of a 2012 Tesla Model S motor.


Move ahead a decade, and here's Elon Musk bragging about a Tesla S Plaid motor in 2022, in which he talks about such things as "sleeves" and "rotors." and three different motors (each of which have their own set of parts), and torque vectoring and adaptive suspension and regenerative braking. He notes, with considerable price, that the overwrap for the main motor has to hold the rotor together when it spins very fast. That torque vectoring and adaptive suspension and regenerative braking all add additional moving parts, as well as performance.


Those brakes are worth discussing. ICE and EVs typically have four tires, and four sets of brakes. Each set of brakes has its own set of parts--whether there is an ICE engine or a electric motor pushing the drivetrain. Lots of parts.
Here is Tesla's parts catalog online, for one part of one subassembly for just one wheel:
https://epc.tesla.com/en-US/catalog...tegories/8e8db24b-4c2f-4900-ac05-2cbe08f716e5

I counted 22 listed parts for just one portion of one brake system (it was the rear brake). Some parts can be purchased in "assembly", so one can't tell exactly how many individual items are in this group of parts, at least from the online catalog. But it is more than a few, and this is just one part of one of the four brakes.

The Tesla Model S Plaid is indeed very impressive. But it is not a car with "20 moving parts," or 200 for that matter.

PLA

 

[Jhenson29]

This is a recurring internet claim, and one that is deeply logically challenged.

First, electric cars have thousands and thousands of parts...just like gasoline cars. Most of the parts are nearly the same (or exactly the same). Seats, tires, windows, motors and sensors (I mean the motors that do things like move seats, windows, wipers, etc.)

The big difference is the drivetrain and fueling system (where the "fuel" is electrical energy for one, and chemical for the other). For both of these types of cars there are lots and lots of parts.

And, stay with me now, they all move. It's a car. Some move within the car, some move along with the car, some move when touched or activated.

If you think there aren't moving parts in an EV, see this video of the dis-assembly of a 2012 Tesla Model S motor.


Move ahead a decade, and here's Elon Musk bragging about a Tesla S Plaid motor in 2022, in which he talks about such things as "sleeves" and "rotors." and three different motors (each of which have their own set of parts), and torque vectoring and adaptive suspension and regenerative braking. He notes, with considerable price, that the overwrap for the main motor has to hold the rotor together when it spins very fast. That torque vectoring and adaptive suspension and regenerative braking all add additional moving parts, as well as performance.


Those brakes are worth discussing. ICE and EVs typically have four tires, and four sets of brakes. Each set of brakes has its own set of parts--whether there is an ICE engine or a electric motor pushing the drivetrain. Lots of parts.
Here is Tesla's parts catalog online, for one part of one subassembly for just one wheel:
https://epc.tesla.com/en-US/catalog...tegories/8e8db24b-4c2f-4900-ac05-2cbe08f716e5

I counted 22 listed parts for just one portion of one brake system (it was the rear brake). Some parts can be purchased in "assembly", so one can't tell exactly how many individual items are in this group of parts, at least from the online catalog. But it is more than a few, and this is just one part of one of the four brakes.

The Tesla Model S Plaid is indeed very impressive. But it is not a car with "20 moving parts," or 200 for that matter.

PLA

I’m not sure what your confusion is, but the original post specifically said drivetrain. It didn’t appear to be trying to hide anything, which is what your response seems to suggest.

And there’s a huge difference between “parts” and “moving parts”.

Parts that don’t move (and no, they aren’t “moving” just because the car is moving) are not going wear, or at least not at the rate as moving parts.

And what “moving parts” do you think regen braking adds…?

I’m having discussions right now at work regarding the preference (mine) for solidstate (triac) outputs vs relay (electromechanical) outputs. Why? Because as long as your don’t overload them, the solidstate outputs will last decades. The electromechanical ones? Not so much. And which part do you think fails? The electrical or the mechanical? Actually, to be fair, arcing is a common failure, especially with inductive loads without surge suppression, and one might consider that an “electrical failure”, but the failure is really that it stops moving.

Regarding the drivetrain, electric motors (if not subject to damage from overloading/heat), will last a very, very long time.

That said, the battery is a more complex energy storage than a gas tank. Charging is more complex task than filling a gas tank.

 

[plamichigan]

Dear Jhenson:

I understand the Taycan forum writer was quoting a post that said "drivetrain." My point is about (a) the fact that there is a recurring and misleading claim that EVs as a whole have only a small number of moving parts; and (b), the specific claim that the "drivetrain" has only 20 (yes, twenty) moving parts in a Tesla.

As evidence of how wrong the drivetrain claim alone is, I provided:
--a video of a teardown of a single tesla engine, in a car that has 3 of them as well as many other components in the "drivetrain"
--another video where Elon Musk himself talks about what are moving parts in a Tesla drivetrain,
--pages from a Tesla parts catalog for just one sub-component of a drivetrain, and
--further examples of drivetrain components that move.

The latter includes regenerative braking, one of the more complicated (and definitely moving) subsystems. Regenerative braking (you and I and all other Taycan owners have them) systems convert kinetic energy to electrical energy, which then goes back to the battery, which can then send the energy to the engine again. That's a lot of moving parts--for every wheel--.

Here's an appreciative summary of the Porsche Taycan regen system:
https://insideevs.com/reviews/397503/porsche-taycan-regenerative-braking-deep-dive/

Even in theory, "moving parts" are not the only ones that can fail. Software fails. Non moving parts (think screens) fail. Chemical reaction systems (e.g. batteries) have chemical reactions that can cause failures, or just oxidize or otherwise change other substances, in ways that you might or might not call "moving". (Ever seen rust move?)

Among the reasons to buy, or not buy, an EV, the claim that the drivetrain (or the whole car) has only 20 (or 200, or some other arbitrary number) "moving parts" is one of the silliest. The claim that a Tesla drivetrain has only 20, as anyone that watches those videos or counts parts in a catalog can figure out, clearly not true.

PLA

 

[Jhenson29]

The latter includes regenerative braking, one of the more complicated (and definitely moving) subsystems. Regenerative braking (you and I and all other Taycan owners have them) systems convert kinetic energy to electrical energy, which then goes back to the battery, which can then send the energy to the engine again. That's a lot of moving parts--for every wheel--.

Which moving parts are added to the system to add regen braking. Be specific. Name them.

 

[plamichigan]

I'm afraid I am at my limit of providing information on this, as I have already produced lengthy explanations, parts catalog citations, and two videos. Nobody is disputing (unless you are) that regenerative braking adds function, complexity, and parts.

Here's a few more links so you can confirm this:

article on porsche regen braking:
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/car-suv/porsche-explains-regenerative-braking

Another one from how stuff works, which is cited by at least one Porsche dealer:
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenerative-braking.htm

post on this forum from @smitty11:
https://www.[Banned Site].com/threads/porsche-taycan-regenerative-braking-explained.845/

Alternatively, here's an experiment you can perform: drive a regular ICE car (not a hybrid) that lacks regenerative brakes. Stomp on the brakes. See how much energy you have added to the high voltage battery with the regular brakes.

PLA

 

[Jhenson29]

I'm afraid I am at my limit of providing information on this, as I have already produced lengthy explanations, parts catalog citations, and two videos. Nobody is disputing (unless you are) that regenerative braking adds function, complexity, and parts.

Here's a few more links so you can confirm this:

article on porsche regen braking:
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/car-suv/porsche-explains-regenerative-braking

Another one from how stuff works, which is cited by at least one Porsche dealer:
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenerative-braking.htm

post on this forum from @smitty11:
https://www.[Banned Site].com/threads/porsche-taycan-regenerative-braking-explained.845/

Alternatively, here's an experiment you can perform: drive a regular ICE car (not a hybrid) that lacks regenerative brakes. Stomp on the brakes. See how much energy you have added to the high voltage battery with the regular brakes.

PLA

You’re at your limit of providing information because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I asked you a simple question and didn’t answer. Because you don’t know. And you don’t know because it’s not there.

You just provide links to things that you think are related.

FYl, I work in industrial controls specializing in programming and electrical. Electric motor and drive control is my day job.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

(Wading in) while I agree that purely mechanical systems have to contend with “wear”, i still find it disingenuous to compare the number of moving parts as the sole indicator of reliability or longevity. On the electric side, capacitors explode, soldering fails, repeated heating/cooling causes brittleness..

On the IC side: an engine may comprise thousands of parts - not all of them are moving, and just because they’re moving it doesn’t mean they can’t last for decades/millions of miles driven. The same “moving”/friction aspect is also what makes mechanical assemblies fairly resilient (not to mention the ease of servicing).

The comparison is a nice tidbit, but its usefulness is limited to depicting how vastly different two solutions can be - it’s not necessarily an indicator of quality.

 

[snstevens]

Does anyone else remember the days when Detroit quality was so bad they had a guy at the end of the assembly line to sweep up screws and fasteners that were incorrectly installed and fell to the carpet? There was also the "built on a Monday" problem, where God knows what parts were missing and even random screws hung from string in doors to create noise when driving.

This finally came to a head in the late 1980s roughly 100 years after the invention of the ICE automobile, and the Japanese led the way to creating high quality, highly reliable automobiles. Now we take high quality autos with thousands of parts and advanced technology mostly for granted.

As we transition to EVs I suspect there will be a period of time before we get truly optimized, high reliability, EV drive trains from battery and charger through motors, brakes, and control systems. Some of these subsystems will be mechanical, and of course a huge number will be electrical (spanning both drive train, safety systems, and all manner of convenience/comfort).

Frankly I'm amazed at how quickly subsystems are being optimized at the legacy manufacturers, as well as Tesla and other pure EV brands. By 2030 whatever level of reliability we come to expect in EVs today will be much, much better.

Why am I sure of this? Well, our expectations for reliability and quality were established in the ICE world, and auto makers can't go back to the old days. High reliability and high quality are now table stakes.

 

[Jhenson29]

i still find it disingenuous to compare the number of moving parts as the sole indicator of reliability or longevity

I agree, but all other things equal, non-moving will last longer/have less issues than moving. Everything else is not equal though; as I made point about energy storage and refilling being more complex in an EV vs ICE. Refilling specifically, it’s difference of active vs passive. It’s a passive system in an ICE vehicle and it’s active in an EV. Passive is preferred to active, all other things equal.

On the electric side, capacitors explode, soldering fails, repeated heating/cooling causes brittleness..

Yes, other components can fail, but I don’t think it’s typical if things are kept in operating temps and not overloaded to create excessive heat. At least, thats been my experience.

On the IC side: an engine may comprise thousands of parts - not all of them are moving, and just because they’re moving it doesn’t mean they can’t last for decades/millions of miles driven.

Agree, but I have to service my ICE vehicle more frequently, and this is a theme of things with moving parts, they need both more (quantity) and more frequent service to be kept in operation. I see this service need dichotomy play out in industrial machinery with different equipment designs that serve the same function.

The same “moving”/friction aspect is also what makes mechanical assemblies fairly resilient (not to mention the ease of servicing).

I’m not sure I follow this one.

The comparison is a nice tidbit, but its usefulness is limited to depicting how vastly different two solutions can be - it’s not necessarily an indicator of quality.

Yes and no; comparing one individual part of two different systems doesn’t tell you which one is better as a whole. But it still has its utility.

 

[whitex]

Well, our expectations for reliability and quality were established in the ICE world, and auto makers can't go back to the old days.

Well, it seem Toyota, the king of reliability, has been dethroned recently per Consumer Reports, and from recent news about Toyota recalling (full replacement) of 100,000 ICE engines on their recent trucks, and apparently now newly discovered transmission problems, and other issues, I'm thinking perhaps the traditional automakers are in fact struggling to keep up with modern car complexities, ICE or EV.

Gone are the days of simple, mostly mechanical cars, with few very simple electronics. Cars are becoming more and more software defined, as that is the natural progression of thigs - it can in fact be cheaper in terms of hardware, more flexible and forgiving (software recalls are way cheaper than mechanical ones, if you have OTA), however traditional automakers are not used to being complex software system developers. Their tiered development models just don't work for this - the successful players seem to be winning with vertical integration strategies today. Can tiered model be made to work? Perhaps, but that will take a lot of standardization and therefore time. Will the traditional automakers survive long enough to make it work, or will they pivot to become software design houses, or will they be absorbed by the new companies, or will they just disappear? Only time will tell.

 

[f1eng]

As a mechanical engineer who worked on the design and running of Formula 1 racing cars for my whole career I really appreciate the mechanical simplicity of EV running gear.

In an IC engined car not only are there a lot of parts but quite a lot of them run hot enough to damage their own lubricant which needs filtering and frequent replacement.
The power bandwidth is so narrow a multi-ratio gearbox is needed to match road speed to usable engine speed.
The engine produces zero torque when stopped so it also needs some sort of clutch.

I don't think we know yet how much more reliable than an IC engine and transmission EV components will be.
I would not be surprised if it were 5 to 10 times better.

The maintenance and service will likely be more on the battery than running gear.

 

[Alpha]

I'm afraid I am at my limit of providing information on this, as I have already produced lengthy explanations, parts catalog citations, and two videos. Nobody is disputing (unless you are) that regenerative braking adds function, complexity, and parts.

Here's a few more links so you can confirm this:

article on porsche regen braking:
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/car-suv/porsche-explains-regenerative-braking

Another one from how stuff works, which is cited by at least one Porsche dealer:
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/regenerative-braking.htm

post on this forum from @smitty11:
https://www.[Banned Site].com/threads/porsche-taycan-regenerative-braking-explained.845/

Alternatively, here's an experiment you can perform: drive a regular ICE car (not a hybrid) that lacks regenerative brakes. Stomp on the brakes. See how much energy you have added to the high voltage battery with the regular brakes.

PLA

Since no one completed this, let me tell you a little secret. Recuperating energy in an EV doesn't require gears or generators or anything special or extra.

If you apply electrical current to a motor it spins. If you spin an electrical motor it generates electricity. It's a bit more complicated than that, but "adding regen" is very simple.

Sponsored