It would be good in the sense that it might finally help us figure out what's up with MT's numbers that nobody on the planet "outside of Tesla" has been able to produce. It's debatable whether even Tesla has been able to produce the MT number, but that's a separate discussion.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chassis CAN Logging To ASCII Text Plus Graphing
- Thread starter lolachampcar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Well sure.
But it might also mean that some of the tings about Tesla that many of us really did not want to believe, in spite of a lot of evidence pointing in that direction for some time, were true.
JER
Member
^ This. Tesla has never been shy about pushing OTA performance upgrades when the validation was solid. IIRC, 85D owners got about 1s shaved off what they were initially promised on 0-60.
Because good intention does not always align with task possibility.
There is also the possibility a (not so good) intent was to wow journalists for a few hours rather than owners for a few years. It's not unprecedented; Ferrari do this all the time.
This was precisely the situation with "691HP", and it took Tesla 10 months to retract it.
Agreed.
I'm thinking that if this turns out to actually do something, then there must have been some intent to activate this at some point. Otherwise why put it into a consumer's car and not just in the "ringer" used for the Motor Trend testing?
- - - Updated - - -
If that's the case, then why have it available on anything else aside from the car which was tested?
Why leave a "smoking gun" in all of the other cars for someone to stumble across and start asking questions?
Why not just delete it altogether and have it not show up in any production vehicles, let alone those which are upgraded or retrofitted to Ludicrous?
The more I think about this, IF it actually turns out to be something, well then it may have been intended for later activation in only the P90D Ludicrous cars, since there is supposed to be a performance line of demarcation between P85D Ludicrous upgraded cars, and P90D Ludicrous cars.
And currently, there does not appear to be much, if any, performance difference between the two.
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Sloppy coding?
Seriously, I'm not being facetious.
My guess is that Tesla would probably have preferred that this, if it is what it appears it may be, have never been discovered, and that it had not been left in all production cars this long. But on the other hand, they also were not expecting someone like wk057 to gain access to the inner workings the way he did, so they probably weren't all that worried about it. Looking at it from a really jaded angle, Tesla may have been more worried about being able to get any car to be able to test to the specs as needed,in case at some point some magazine attempted to do some sort of expose type reporting. With the firmware set up this way I expect Tesla could switch "false" to "true" OTA, and there would be no evidence of that anywhere on the display if that's how Tesla wanted it done.
I'm not suggesting this is the reason. It's just one possibility.
Sloppy coding is probably more likely.
JER
Member
P85DEE, first I'll remind you that there's an innocent explanation and I stated it first.
Assuming your objections address the second possibility:
I dont' want to believe this either, but your objections aren't ruling it out.
Anyway, let's withhold judgement until more evidence is in. I look forward to seeing comparative performance data; maybe there's nothing here at all. As I said, I'm sincerely hoping there isn't.
Assuming your objections address the second possibility:
Their convenience? They may have underestimated how easy it would be to find.
Because they might want to use it again, and made a (poorly) calculated risk? Or they were just sloppy...
They have the option to delete it at any time.
I dont' want to believe this either, but your objections aren't ruling it out.
Anyway, let's withhold judgement until more evidence is in. I look forward to seeing comparative performance data; maybe there's nothing here at all. As I said, I'm sincerely hoping there isn't.
They'd have to know which car was being tested, including the VIN number, to pull that off.
We're both killing time speculating here, but I am thinking again, and it's an "IF", but "IF" this really is something, well then the most feasible scenario I can come up with, is that it was intended to create a line of separation between P85D and P90D as was already stated in the Ludicrous Upgrade offering.
Furthermore, I suspect,......or rather speculate, that "IF" that were the case, that it could have been a planned OTA update for all P90D owners, but NOT P85D upgraded owners, and that this OTA upgrade would not come out until the P85D upgrade cutoff.
Some of us have previously been skeptical that there would be a future upgrade, or upgrades, to the P90D Ludicrous cars, which would not be available to P85D upgrade owners.
I'm wondering if this is the groundwork for such an upgrade.
JER
Member
One other thing: This needn't mean anything - there've certainly been plenty of misleading variable names in the history of software - but performanceDemoMode does not sound like something intended to be left on all the time.
I don't think so either, and that's something else I was thinking about Jer.
There is a "hyperlink" or "highlit" option for "maximum battery" already.
What if the same type arrangement were put into place for this "PerformancDemoMode" in those cars for which it was intended to be made available, .......that's if there are any such cars.
If this PerformanceDemoMode, actually does something, well then it would seem that there would have to be a way to invoke it.
Last edited:
On a more boring note-
I've increased logger data file size to 3 megs and have added a switch feature to log (and stop logging) on demand. For the record, DOS SUCKS. I'd forgotten just how much of a PITA it is to hand build FAT and File Listings that agree and do not piss off the host PC.
There is that nagging wait at the end of any logging event while I wait for a battery temperature message but otherwise the switch feature seems to work very well and significantly cuts down on data.
Question for those using the Battery Health option. Now that the log file is three times the size, should I not just go to maximum logging rate on battery health data sets (once every three seconds) and capture even slow charging sessions at full data rate instead of doing a current directed sample rate?
I've increased logger data file size to 3 megs and have added a switch feature to log (and stop logging) on demand. For the record, DOS SUCKS. I'd forgotten just how much of a PITA it is to hand build FAT and File Listings that agree and do not piss off the host PC.
There is that nagging wait at the end of any logging event while I wait for a battery temperature message but otherwise the switch feature seems to work very well and significantly cuts down on data.
Question for those using the Battery Health option. Now that the log file is three times the size, should I not just go to maximum logging rate on battery health data sets (once every three seconds) and capture even slow charging sessions at full data rate instead of doing a current directed sample rate?
JER
Member
Crazy idea: Is there any indication in the CAN traffic of Ludicrous cars that the BMS can communicate with the smart fuse?
Soooooooooo....... performanceDemoMode ........
It seems enabling this activates a hidden menu in the car info screen (the normal one that shows your VIN when you hit the "T" button):
Interestingly enough, no P85D/P90D/etc.... just "Max", which is the default setting. So, seems like it'll be a way for sales folks to demo the performance of other trims while test driving a P90D... that's just my guess, though.
However... I did launch in the same spot as the 0-100 I did the other day. Unfortunately I had to cut it at ~82 due to... um... unforeseen circumstances.... but, comparing the data........ it looks pretty much identical. Today's run *was* a hair faster, and interestingly enough at slightly lower max power (~450kW vs ~463kW)... but not faster by much. Like ~0.05s just looking at the text of the data. I'll try and graph an overlay just to be 100% sure in a bit.
I'm going to call it a false alarm for now, though. Sorry folks!
It seems enabling this activates a hidden menu in the car info screen (the normal one that shows your VIN when you hit the "T" button):
Interestingly enough, no P85D/P90D/etc.... just "Max", which is the default setting. So, seems like it'll be a way for sales folks to demo the performance of other trims while test driving a P90D... that's just my guess, though.
However... I did launch in the same spot as the 0-100 I did the other day. Unfortunately I had to cut it at ~82 due to... um... unforeseen circumstances.... but, comparing the data........ it looks pretty much identical. Today's run *was* a hair faster, and interestingly enough at slightly lower max power (~450kW vs ~463kW)... but not faster by much. Like ~0.05s just looking at the text of the data. I'll try and graph an overlay just to be 100% sure in a bit.
I'm going to call it a false alarm for now, though. Sorry folks!
Yet another example of something that I wish they would expose to owners.It seems enabling this activates a hidden menu in the car info screen (the normal one that shows your VIN when you hit the "T" button):
"Come for a ride."
"Cool."
...
"ZOMG that's quick."
"Want to drive?"
"Yes."
...
"ZOMG that feels even quicker when I'm in control. I'm not sure I can afford a ___ model though, or that it's worth it. Do you think I should just get the 70D?"
"Just a sec."
tap, tap, tap
"Ok, let's try how 70D Emulation Mode feels."
Seriously, Tesla. We could really help the store folks a lot by sending better informed customers to them by demoing the various performance levels with software -- in the wild.
- - - Updated - - -
@wk057
By any chance are you up for taking some quick samples (and chart them) so that we can see how some of the < P emulation modes compare to the data we have on real non-P vehicles?
Yeah, definitely going to try it out later when I have more time.
For now.... I'll just post this confusing graph that does nothing but demonstrate the erie repeatability of launches in my car...
I mean... that's pretty crazy. Today's stops at 82 MPH, but still... up until then those lines match up pretty much perfectly. Creepy.
It's almost like it's...... electric.
- - - Updated - - -
I think Tesla is well aware that no customer car will do 10.9. See above.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Nice, thanks Bill. Just getting few mins after long day. Traveling this week, so will catch up as I can.
- - - Updated - - -
dammit, have some rep again already! Seriously, thanks! Few Image at which location?
(Still playing thread catch up, though hoping demo mode is just a term for ludicrous vs insane, though fear I'm wrong)
- - - Updated - - -
wow, that is eerily similar. Great demo mode though...
whitex
Well-Known Member
There is a post on TM forums from a guy who got an overnight test-drive with this enabled - Used P85D or New 90D | Tesla Motors. Apparently it's a new sales tool, which makes sense considering how many people wish to test drive all 3 performance levels before deciding what they want to buy. Some people who may not have considered higher performance models before, may choose to tap the screen and try it, then when they go back to the lower mode they suddenly find the car feels under-powered (that feeling goes away the next day but they don't get to keep the car long enough to find out ;-) ). It's also likely that this can be enabled via service menu somewhere.
Last edited:
