Ingenext Boost Modules [aftermarket]

[Knightshade]

What the Inginext website says is "To make a Tesla update, you will be able to authorize it from the Ingenext web application and proceed to its installation."

Basically they test each update to see if it breaks their stuff or not and they post on the website if it's safe.

In theory it can break functionality at any time, and they offer no guarantee they'll find a workaround... so at some point you might face the choice of no longer applying Tesla updates, or allowing the car to revert back to its original config.

I'd also be VERY surprised if a 10/18 build is not a 980. IIRC I've seen ONE person who said they have a 12/18 990, and all other 990s I've seen are early to mid-2019 or later builds.




More detail is in the ghost user manual which says

In the future, all updates from Tesla on the center display
will failed.

In order to be able to allow these update to be
installed, you must enable the Allow Updates setting in
the Ingenext’s app.

Before installing any future update, we highly
recommend that you visit our website
https://ingenext.ca/pages/safe-tesla-updates-forboost50-and-bonus-module to confirm that the staged
update on your center display is safe to be installed with
your current Ingenext’s app version.

If it isn’t , you should wait until a new version of the Ingenext’s app is released
in order to fix potential changes and new features that
would be deployed.

To prevent an accidental update of the center display,
you should always disable the Allow Updates setting in
the Ingenext’s app once the staged update is installed
and the Ingenext’s app is updated accordingly

 

[Jericho2414]

Any public reason why there is no acceleration boost from anyone for the LR RWD?

 

[MikeyC]

The absolute fastest i've seen a Performance run is 3s flat (2.99) 0-60 and 11.3 in the quarter mile. The absolute fastest i've seen a Boosted LR is 0-60 in 3.5 and 11.7 in the quarter mile. The fastest LR i've seen is 0-60 in 4 flat and 12.1 in the quarter mile. They are all within roughly half seconds of each other at their best.

The problem with comparing the absolute best runs from LR and P is that there are orders of magnitude more runs from P models than LR+boost. That gives the P a lot greater chance of having all the stars aligned to make a ringer run. What I've noticed is that if you look at the majority of runs, the P runs the 1/4 mile in 11.5 to 11.6 while the LR+boost runs it in 11.7 to 11.8. When Brooks from Drag Times ran his P against the LR+boost, he got 11.6 for the P and 11.7 for the LR+boost. They were run on the same date in the same location so whether or not it was done before or after any 5% boost is irrelevant: both cars would have either had it... or not.

Interestingly, when they ran both from a roll, the LR+boost pulled ahead of the P every time and the MPH (1/4 trap speeds) were the same. So all the "extra" from the P happens down low.

Mike

 

[Apprunner]

The problem with comparing the absolute best runs from LR and P is that there are orders of magnitude more runs from P models than LR+boost. That gives the P a lot greater chance of having all the stars aligned to make a ringer run. What I've noticed is that if you look at the majority of runs, the P runs the 1/4 mile in 11.5 to 11.6 while the LR+boost runs it in 11.7 to 11.8. When Brooks from Drag Times ran his P against the LR+boost, he got 11.6 for the P and 11.7 for the LR+boost. They were run on the same date in the same location so whether or not it was done before or after any 5% boost is irrelevant: both cars would have either had it... or not.

Interestingly, when they ran both from a roll, the LR+boost pulled ahead of the P every time and the MPH (1/4 trap speeds) were the same. So all the "extra" from the P happens down low.

Mike

The P has the bigger tires which will take effect at higher speeds because they all have the same horsepower up top. I don't believe for a minute that LR Boost will be within 0.1 seconds to a P on the same day, at the same track, at the same SOC. Dyno runs have proved the horsepower difference. There will always be about a ~0.5 second (give or take 0.1s or so) difference between the two cars because its software defined to be so. This 0.5s difference all takes place below 70mph. They all equalize after that.

 

[MikeyC]

The P has the bigger tires which will take effect at higher speeds because they all have the same horsepower up top. I don't believe for a minute that LR Boost will be within 0.1 seconds to a P on the same day, at the same track, at the same SOC. Dyno runs have proved the horsepower difference. There will always be about a ~0.5 second (give or take 0.1s or so) difference between the two cars because its software defined to be so. This 0.5s difference all takes place below 70mph. They all equalize after that.

What I said was 1/4 mile within 0.2 (not 0.1). Tesla's own specs are even in line with that. They list the P as 0-60 in 3.1 subtracting 1 ft rollout and 3.7 in the LR+boost without subtracting rollout. Rollout is pretty consistently 0.3 seconds at this performance level which gives a true 0-60 comparison (without the 1 ft marketing hype on the P) of:

P: 3.4
LR+boost: 3.7

That's a 0.3 second difference to 60 and given the surprise from those who have tested the P and LR+boost side by side above 60 and witnessed the LR+boost walking on the P... I can see the LR+boost gaining back a tenth above 60.

Mike

 

[Apprunner]

What I said was 1/4 mile within 0.2 (not 0.1). Tesla's own specs are even in line with that. They list the P as 0-60 in 3.1 subtracting 1 ft rollout and 3.7 in the LR+boost without subtracting rollout. Rollout is pretty consistently 0.3 seconds at this performance level which gives a true 0-60 comparison (without the 1 ft marketing hype on the P) of:

P: 3.4
LR+boost: 3.7

That's a 0.3 second difference to 60 and given the surprise from those who have tested the P and LR+boost side by side above 60 and witnessed the LR+boost walking on the P... I can see the LR+boost gaining back a tenth above 60.

Mike

Its all speculation until the results say otherwise. Right now, I've seen the fastest Ps run ~11.4s while the fastest Boosted LR is 11.8s (according to Knightshade data too). As more timeslips come in, this may change but to say they are within 0.2s at their best isn't accurate. Times vary in drag races all the time due to surface, temps, and SOC for BEVs. The only way to compare true potential is to look at a large sample size and find the best times and say its the true potential of the car. I've never seen a LR AWD sniff 11.6 and drag times and others already were faster in 2019.

 

[MikeyC]

Its all speculation until the results say otherwise. Right now, I've seen the fastest Ps run ~11.4s while the fastest Boosted LR is 11.8s (according to Knightshade data too). As more timeslips come in, this may change but to say they are within 0.2s at their best isn't accurate. Times vary in drag races all the time due to surface, temps, and SOC for BEVs. The only way to compare true potential is to look at a large sample size and find the best times and say its the true potential of the car. I've never seen a LR AWD sniff 11.6 and drag times and others already were faster in 2019.

I agree. We need more data points, particularly with the LR+boost because those are more slim pickins. I'll take mine when I get a chance but it'll probably be a couple weeks. For now, here's an 11.70 from a LR+boost:

Mike

 

[TwoK4drSi]

I’ve raced a P+ to test the theory and we were dead even the whole time from a dead stop and rolling. Had about 12 runs and same SOC. A headlight difference depending on the jump. All ingenext does is copy the code and inputs it into the AWD. It’s really not that hard to understand the concept. They don’t play with any settings.

 

[Knightshade]

Any public reason why there is no acceleration boost from anyone for the LR RWD?

There's nothing to boost. Most of the gain of AB is from the front motor, which does not exist on that car.

The rear motor on an AB car actually makes slightly less peak HP (though slightly more peak torque)

 

[MagnusMako]

The problem with comparing the absolute best runs from LR and P is that there are orders of magnitude more runs from P models than LR+boost. That gives the P a lot greater chance of having all the stars aligned to make a ringer run. What I've noticed is that if you look at the majority of runs, the P runs the 1/4 mile in 11.5 to 11.6 while the LR+boost runs it in 11.7 to 11.8. When Brooks from Drag Times ran his P against the LR+boost, he got 11.6 for the P and 11.7 for the LR+boost. They were run on the same date in the same location so whether or not it was done before or after any 5% boost is irrelevant: both cars would have either had it... or not.

Interestingly, when they ran both from a roll, the LR+boost pulled ahead of the P every time and the MPH (1/4 trap speeds) were the same. So all the "extra" from the P happens down low.

Mike

For at least the 2018 models I think I'm pretty qualified to speak on this 'uncertainty' of variables in testing as my car has essentially gone from a LR+AB to a Stealth P (via Ingenext Ghost mod). I've tested both before and after thoroughly under identical conditions and hardware in timeframes not far apart. My best 1/4 mile time with just Boost was 11.71 (proof). My best 1/4 mile time after converting to a Stealth P3 is an 11.33 (proof). This comes out to a 0.38 or 4/10th's of a second difference. For the 0-60 (1' rollout), my best time before with AB was 3.45 and then after to Stealth P3 was 2.97 - 0.48 or half of a second difference - pretty much precisely the difference most people have suggested on the low and top end. As you can see, I trapped higher speeds in my LR+AB (119.8) compared to the P (116.8) which I think confirms that there is more pull from the LR on the top, but we still don't know exactly why that is or what's happening in the software that may be causing that, though there have been a few guesses here.

 

[alexiscool]

Isn’t the reason why P traps lower speed is because it covers more distance quicker early on, which gives it less distance later to build speed before 1/4 mi is hit?

Something about “time to distance” vs. “time to speed”. In other words, I’d assume the P must hit 120 in less time compared to LR+AB, otherwise the LR+AB would be confirmed to make more total power (not peak) at throughout the run. Can anyone test this?

 

[MikeyC]

I think the easy way to look at it is for car A to reach a higher speed in the same distance as car B, car A has to out-accelerate car B at some point in the run. If car A doesn't out-accelerate car B at the start... it has to out-accelerate it toward the end of the run. I also think it's true that for car A to reach a higher speed in the same distance, it had to have delivered more overall power than car B because car A had higher average acceleration (f=ma). That's also why at the dragstrip, ET is often an indication of traction and MPH an indication of power.

Mike

 

[Krash]

...we still don't know exactly why that is or what's happening in the software...

I think we know almost everything in software already. The settings have both been estimated from dynamometer readings as well as read directly off the CANBus.

The motors have max torque and max power software settings, different for the different setups, but all known. And the battery has its own max power software setting. And the motors have their own inherent torque curve - a reduction in torque at higher rpm as a function of the motor design - a fixed curve at given state of charge, probably due to back EMF.

At full state of charge and acceleration the 3/Y goes from max torque to motor limits without a hitting much of the battery limit, a purposeful design by Tesla since the S/X motors were relatively over engineered by comparison.

I think the only black box is the 980 and 990 difference. If the 990 has smaller inverters, the software settings are set below the level where you could tell. Maybe the front/rear power split algorithm might be unknown.

 

[Jericho2414]

There's nothing to boost. Most of the gain of AB is from the front motor, which does not exist on that car.

The rear motor on an AB car actually makes slightly less peak HP (though slightly more peak torque)

But the RWD SR model has a boost from this third party vendor?

 

[alexiscool]

I think the easy way to look at it is for car A to reach a higher speed in the same distance as car B, car A has to out-accelerate car B at some point in the run. If car A doesn't out-accelerate car B at the start... it has to out-accelerate it toward the end of the run. I also think it's true that for car A to reach a higher speed in the same distance, it had to have delivered more overall power than car B because car A had higher average acceleration (f=ma). That's also why at the dragstrip, ET is often an indication of traction and MPH an indication of power.

Mike

Good stuff! The “higher average acceleration” is helpful to visualize.

It’s just odd that CAN bus readouts of P and LR+AB’s power curve shows P making higher or the same power at any given speed:

https://imgur.com/a/s87VuMS

 

[alexiscool]

Good stuff! The “higher average acceleration” is helpful to visualize.

It’s just odd that CAN bus readouts of P and LR+AB’s power curve shows P making higher or the same power at any given speed:

https://imgur.com/a/s87VuMS

On second thought, the graph only displays data up until 100mph. I guess we have to assume LR+AB makes more power somewhere after 100mph compared to P in order to trap higher.

Someones's gotta get that data!

 

[Knightshade]

But the RWD SR model has a boost from this third party vendor?

Yes.

Which just tells the SR RWD car (with 1 motor) that it's really an LR RWD car (with the same motor).

Note that 3rd party boost is only available to older SRs with the same motor the LR RWD came with.

 

[MikeyC]

Good stuff! The “higher average acceleration” is helpful to visualize.

It’s just odd that CAN bus readouts of P and LR+AB’s power curve shows P making higher or the same power at any given speed:

https://imgur.com/a/s87VuMS

I noticed an oddity with the graph. The graph for the AWD+ seems like it is shifted to the left a bit. HP and torque of all 3 cars should cross at the same speed but they don't.

Mike

 

[MagnusMako]

I’ve raced a P+ to test the theory and we were dead even the whole time from a dead stop and rolling. Had about 12 runs and same SOC. A headlight difference depending on the jump. All ingenext does is copy the code and inputs it into the AWD. It’s really not that hard to understand the concept. They don’t play with any settings.

Yup

I think the only black box is the 980 and 990 difference. If the 990 has smaller inverters, the software settings are set below the level where you could tell. Maybe the front/rear power split algorithm might be unknown.

This is what I was talking about. The difference in pull. The only mechanical difference is the MOSFET's so the rest should just be software controlled. So for some reason, the output algorithm or some other unknown is causing the LR non-P to pull harder up top. So the question is why and for what reason.

 

[alexiscool]

Hope I calculated this correctly:
Difference between MagnusMako's LR+AB and P runs in terms of time elapsed from 1/8mi to 1/4mi = 0.027sec
Difference between MagnusMako's LR+AB and P runs in terms of mph gained from 1/8mi to 1/4mi = 6.16mph

So, in essentially the same distance and time elapsed, LR+AB gained 6.16mph more than P.

That's pretty significant and should show up clearly on a graph charting power delivery from 100-120mph if anyone can get that data.