Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Performance of P85D with Ludicrous upgrade review

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I had this expectation as well, but I don't recall Tesla stating it. Do you have a reference for the Tesla commentary? Was it in the release notes?

andrewket also asked where I got the information that Tesla had said anything about not using it all the time, because of the risk of battery degradation.

I did some searching, but can't seem to find it.

I definitely wasn't just using my own judgment, because I don't have experience with this stuff, and would not do that. So my best guess is that it is one of two things. Either I really did read it somewhere, and I just can't easily find it now. If that's the case, perhaps someone else will provide the link, or the exact source. The other possibility is that with other people having discussed the possibility of degradation as a possible negative I --MAY-- have somehow then taken that and inadvertently used it as a bias to misunderstand the release notes that I had probably only read once (before finding them again last night,) and somehow formed the wrong impression in my mind. If it is the latter, I apologize. It was not my intention to spread FUD.
 
I'm still trying to get data points for the Max KW vs SOC chart. Adding a few points from data within this thread, here is how it now looks:

TeslaPwr14.jpg


The shape of the P85DL curve is beginning to look like the P90D curve. I know that the most interest has been in the acceleration performance of the P85DL over the P85D. However, another benefit I see from this chart is how well the P85DL performs with lower SOC. At 60% the P85DL is still able to provide more power than the P85D at 90%.

Data collected so far for the P85DL and P90DL has been from yomama, thimel and Burt Reynolds. Sorka's data on his P85D is the most comprehensive and produces almost perfect fitting curves. I'll will be taking delivery of my P90DL next week and should finally be able to show a complete SOC power curve for it then.

It will be most interesting to see how the curves change over time.
 
andrewket also asked where I got the information that Tesla had said anything about not using it all the time, because of the risk of battery degradation.

I did some searching, but can't seem to find it.

I definitely wasn't just using my own judgment, because I don't have experience with this stuff, and would not do that. So my best guess is that it is one of two things. Either I really did read it somewhere, and I just can't easily find it now. If that's the case, perhaps someone else will provide the link, or the exact source. The other possibility is that with other people having discussed the possibility of degradation as a possible negative I --MAY-- have somehow then taken that and inadvertently used it as a bias to misunderstand the release notes that I had probably only read once (before finding them again last night,) and somehow formed the wrong impression in my mind. If it is the latter, I apologize. It was not my intention to spread FUD.

Has anyone with Ludicrous charged at a supercharger and then enabled max battery to see if it was already ready. I suppose if it wasn't, we can't even assume that the *right* temperature could actually be lower than what the battery is after supercharging. It could be that supercharging makes it too hot for the software to want to allow the extra and not supercharging and without max battery set it's too low. i.e. the max battery setting might be warming the battery up to a goldilocks zone and if it's too warm from supercharging, maybe it cools the battery first.
 
Thanks. I'll certainly post it here if I do.

Anyone remember reading anything from Tesla that indicated that Max Battery Power should not be used all the time, and that the downside to doing so was some battery degradation? If so, do you remember where?

I recall seeing someone in here muse, or more accurately make a wild guess that it would. This might be what you recall.

However it was unsubstantiated. Nowhere have I seen where Tesla has said such.
 
Last edited:
I hit 118.3 MPH on the vbox:

Accel results
Speed(mph) Time(s)
0-60 02.9
0-100 07.6


Accel Distance results
Distance(ft) Time(s) @Speed(mph)
0-60 01.7 41.9
0-660 07.2 97.5
0-1320 11.3 118.3


Accel results
Speed(mph) Time(s)
0-60 02.9
0-100 07.7


Accel Distance results
Distance(ft) Time(s) @Speed(mph)
0-60 01.7 41.5
0-660 07.2 97.1
0-1320 11.4 117.9
 
andrewket also asked where I got the information that Tesla had said anything about not using it all the time, because of the risk of battery degradation.

I did some searching, but can't seem to find it.

I definitely wasn't just using my own judgment, because I don't have experience with this stuff, and would not do that. So my best guess is that it is one of two things. Either I really did read it somewhere, and I just can't easily find it now. If that's the case, perhaps someone else will provide the link, or the exact source. The other possibility is that with other people having discussed the possibility of degradation as a possible negative I --MAY-- have somehow then taken that and inadvertently used it as a bias to misunderstand the release notes that I had probably only read once (before finding them again last night,) and somehow formed the wrong impression in my mind. If it is the latter, I apologize. It was not my intention to spread FUD.
Perhaps you thought of the Roadster message?
"Frequent use of the Performance Mode will reduce long-term battery life. Continue?"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/niallkennedy/3241941839

Technically it is true for both cars (there will be quicker degradation when in performance mode than not), but the significance likely isn't high enough (esp. for Model S chemistry) for Tesla to even bother to put a warning anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

I hit 118.3 MPH on the vbox:
That would appear to be the highest trap so far. What SOC is it? One thing I noticed so far is that all testing by users had been done at ~90% SOC or lower. MotorTrend said their car was with a full charge when they got the 10.9. Would that be enough to make some difference?
 
I hit 118.3 MPH on the vbox:

Accel results
Speed(mph) Time(s)
0-60 02.9
0-100 07.6


Accel Distance results
Distance(ft) Time(s) @Speed(mph)
0-60 01.7 41.9
0-660 07.2 97.5
0-1320 11.3 118.3


Accel results
Speed(mph) Time(s)
0-60 02.9
0-100 07.7


Accel Distance results
Distance(ft) Time(s) @Speed(mph)
0-60 01.7 41.5
0-660 07.2 97.1
0-1320 11.4 117.9

With pbox tools, vbox tools, or vboxverify? Remember the track averages your speed over the last 60 feet rather than exactly at the 1/4 mile mark.

Still, 11.3 is impressive. Any chance I could get the vbo file for that?
 
Still trying to figure out vboxerify. With that, the runs come in at:

11.325 Secs @ 117.595 MPH

11.368 Secs @ 117.200 MPH

11.344 Secs @ 116.956 MPH

With pbox tools, the same runs come in at:

11.54 @ 118.31
11.57 @ 117.93
11.52 @ 117.84

The times match up on pbox tools if I manually calculate it and use a 1 ft rollout. Does the 1/4 mile time include a 1 ft rollout? If I don't use a 1 ft rollout, the pbox values reported by the tool are exactly what I get when I find the start time at 0 MPH and time at the end distance.

Very confusing.

This was a vbn file, so it's a pbox, not a vbox, right? Did the 11.3 come directly on the pbox display? If so, then whatever they're doing matches vboxverify but not pbox tools yet pbox tools seems to have the actual correct ETs. The higher exit speeds of pbox tools are probably because the pbox built in calculation is averaging over the last 60 feet to match what they do at tracks vs the pbox software used in post doesn't.

The peak horsepower came out at 550 or about 10 more than a P85D+L at 88% SOC.

Note, all of those charts I've been posting with rear wheel horsepower may be entirely wrong. I've been using the formula they published for horsepower in Racelogic's manual:

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.003054



From:

Power, Torque and RPM Calculations - Racelogic


But I don't believe this is correct. I think it should be:


Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) / 375

or

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.00266666666667

I've emailed Racelogic to ask for clarification. If I'm right, which I hope I'm not, all the the horsepower calculations in my charts have been too high by 14.5%!!!

:(
I got suspicious when the coast down hp values seemed too high, so I went and figured out what the formula should be. Really hope I'm wrong.




 
PerformanceBox - 01 - Racelogic USA Store


yea, 11.3 @ 118.3 was on the screen.... the data on the screen is the same data it writes to the .txt file....



Still trying to figure out vboxerify. With that, the runs come in at:

This was a vbn file, so it's a pbox, not a vbox, right? Did the 11.3 come directly on the pbox display? If so, then whatever they're doing matches vboxverify but not pbox tools yet pbox tools seems to have the actual correct ETs. The higher exit speeds of pbox tools are probably because the pbox built in calculation is averaging over the last 60 feet to match what they do at tracks vs the pbox software used in post doesn't.



 
Note, all of those charts I've been posting with rear wheel horsepower may be entirely wrong. I've been using the formula they published for horsepower in Racelogic's manual:

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.003054

But I don't believe this is correct. I think it should be:

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) / 375

or

Weight (lbs) * Long Acc (g) * Speed channel (mph) * 0.00266666666667




Well that might explain why my manual calculations based upon the graphs don't seem to converge when trying to calculate the torques and then run that back thru the gearbox to get vehicle acceleration. Good catch if you are right!

units conversion: i've been using lbs*g*mph*(88/60)/550, which is your 1/375 term, so i agree with your finding.

5280 ft/mile / 3600 seconds/hr = 88/60 converts mph to ft/sec. 550 lbs-ft/sec converts to hp.

For some reason they used nautical miles in their calculation?, 6046 ft per nautical mile.
(6046/3600)/550 = 1/327 = 0.003054
 
Last edited:
Yes, they installed 2.7.77

Thanks. That's the typical one currently being installed. My car got it at the service center a week ago. I asked because the P85DL performance has been so good it made me wonder whether there was a new build installed that optimized Ludicrous mode. But I doubt .77 does anything special or we would have heard by now from P90D owners who have it and whose performance had benefited from it.
 
Last edited:
How hot could the built in heaters get the pack? More than 112KW when your supercharging at 30%? On a hot day that results in the flaps opening and the cooling fans creating a very load roar. Is max battery even hotter than this or is it an optimal temperature that is warmer normal driving warm but still less than supercharging warm. If so, then supercharging would do more long term damage.
 
How hot could the built in heaters get the pack? More than 112KW when your supercharging at 30%? On a hot day that results in the flaps opening and the cooling fans creating a very load roar. Is max battery even hotter than this or is it an optimal temperature that is warmer normal driving warm but still less than supercharging warm. If so, then supercharging would do more long term damage.

I know that a battery sitting around very hot for very long is bad, just as a battery charged to 100% sitting around for a long time is bad.

But ignoring that for a moment, and getting back to your question, is it possible that whatever degradation effects may exist could be impacted by the combination of both heat and the battery being discharged? In other words even though a hot battery sitting around is bad, is it possible that a slightly less hot battery actually discharging at a high rate of discharge is worse for the degradation aspect? If so, even if the battery gets hotter during supercharging, the max battery power option could be worse from a degradation standpoint.