"Crazy <= Ludicrous; therefore crazy behavior on ludicrous vehicles is plausible."
Was my translation adequate?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Chassis CAN Logging To ASCII Text Plus Graphing
- Thread starter lolachampcar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Was my translation adequate?
Code:
GUI_dragStripModeRequest,true
VAPI_dragStripStatus,Heating
VAPI_dragStripTimeEst,19Might not have time for max battery to get to "Ready" before I gave to leave, but we'll see how this goes. I'll check in from the road if I notice anything immediately. Otherwise I'll parse my logs when I get home.
Bill D
Member
Well, my butt dyno says thats the fastest 0-65 I've ever experienced. But then again, my butt dyno probably isn't calibrated properly for > 1G acceleration. I'll parse the data when I get to my destination if I have time.
Edit: The car *really* squatted it seemed like when I floored it, too. Was definitely different in some aspect. My local 1/8th mile track is open for testing Friday. Might go if weather is clear
Bill D
Member
Mike - Thanks, I loaded the logger source data and spreadsheets from my first 4 runs into the Google Drive "Bill D" folder.....you should have an email from me/google drive with edit access to the new Bill D directory
I also added an automatic Virtual Timeslip and 0-60 time to the logger spreadsheet (Both with 1-ft rollout). Below is the Virtual Timeslip from my Run 4 (posted above), compared to one of my recent actual Dragstrip Timeslips:
OMG
I REALLY hope this does not make a difference. I'd hate to think if it did.
Bill
Very nice work... You do not see that type of repeatability from an ICE on back to back runs at the same track within minutes of each other yet you are seeing it from track versus logged data.
I REALLY hope this does not make a difference. I'd hate to think if it did.
Bill
Very nice work... You do not see that type of repeatability from an ICE on back to back runs at the same track within minutes of each other yet you are seeing it from track versus logged data.
What would be really interesting is to do this to a P85D that has NOT been upgraded to L yet. if they were running the fuse hotter than normal for demo cars it may not be something that takes effect with the new software and the L fuse. If the P85Ds with the old software ran more current than 1300 amps, it also might explain why the test drivers were speed limited as a way to prevent the current from being drawn for too long.
- - - Updated - - -
UGH!!!! The suspense!!!!! :scared:
- - - Updated - - -
Well, if it does, I'll be hacking my car thank you very much!
Yes, that would be interesting, but WK said he did not see it before the L upgrade, so was it hidden somewhere else or is this just the 'Motortrend and other friends of the house' setting?
If it is there and it makes it faster it may well be worth a hack
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
You make it sound like this would be a good thing.
I think this would be a terrible thing. It would mean Tesla had played games with the specs, AGAIN.
It certainly wouldn't mean that all the cars are really capable of utilizing this performance mode on a regular basis, because if they were, without causing other issues, Tesla would have enabled the mode for everyone. What it says to me is Tesla probably realized that pushing the components as hard as they need to in demo mode would not be good for Tesla's bottom line with respect to having to replace failed parts under warranty, etc., so they chose not to do it, but chose to enable the mode for test cars, so that it would look like they were meeting advertised specifications.
Perhaps that's just my jaded view, and there are other reasonable explanations. I'm open to hearing some.
I'm not sure to what extent you were kidding, but if you weren't I'd think doing something like that, and enabling a mode Tesla did not intend to have enabled could result in warranty issues should parts fail due to being overly stressed in that mode. I could be wrong on that. It could be more of a situation of Tesla's chickens (or albatrosses) coming home to roost, and perhaps there is really nothing Tesla could do about it, since they programmed the functionality into the car.
I still don't view this, if it's what it seems it may be, as something to celebrate.
(Though wk057's discovery of it is, of course, worthy of our accolades.)
JER
Member
Code:
performanceDemoMode = falseIf it does happen to do something, I foresee a firmware revision coming early. Wouldn't want anyone to... err... suffer reliability issues due to an undocumented non-qualified feature being discovered.
See VW, learn from Tesla. Don't install a defeat device unless you can remove it again on the sly. :wink:
I'm hoping that this turns out to be it as well.
It's good though to see that as the car stands, it has 11.2 in it.
But again, I hope that this explains the 10.9 that Motor Trend got and if so, that this "performance demo" can be activated and utilized in the rest of the Ludicrous equipped vehicles.
P90D's have been in customers hands for what, 8-9 months now? If it has better performance, and it's not on by now, there must be a component issue of why it's not on.
Perhaps. But my optimistic view, tells me that it could mean that they were planning to make PerformanceDemoMode available in a future update for Ludicrous equipped cars.
For all we know at this point, this "performanceDemoMode" might even allow performance better than 10.9. Or it may do nothing.
I recall Tesla refusing to allow operation of a salvaged Model S that some guy had pieced back together. Rumor was that they effectively bricked the entire car.
The pessimist in me makes me believe that should they discover unauthorized activation of this mode, that it could possibly result in warranty issues at "best", and in functionality issues at worse.
All of this is speculation of course, but if this "feature" does turn out to be something, well then it may have only been intended for certain cars.
For example, remember how the Ludicrous upgrade was not supposed to be a "direct match" of P90D Ludicrous performance?
This could have been the intended "separation" point. In other words, it may have been intended at some point to be activated in P90D Ludicrous cars, but not P85D Ludicrous cars. And if unauthorized activation of it occurred in either, then repercussions could occur if Tesla found out about it.
Again, for all we know, if this is some sort of an upgrade, well then this could have been intended to be another "for pay" upgrade.
I see the whole thing as a positive overall, but you do point to a few concerning negatives.
- - - Updated - - -
Why have the option to make it "true" or "false" in the software though, if at some point it was not intended to be made "true"?
Last edited:
Bill D
Member
It would be a good thing to know that a P90DL in the wild can really run 10.9 because that would make it more likely that a future SW release will enable it. I suspect they are holding back, because the Design Studio still boldly promotes a 10.9 second quarter mile:
"Ludicrous Speed decreases the 0-60 mph time for Model S 10% to 2.8 seconds with a quarter mile time of 10.9 seconds."
If they knew it would never run 10.9, some lawyer would have revised this unambiguous promotion with weasel-words.
Last edited: