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

car and driver P90D 11.1 @ 121 MPH

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Looks like that pass included a 1.617 60ft time.

2015 Tesla Model S P90D Ludicrous Timeslip Scan - DragTimes.com

According to the Drag Times site, the best quarter mile time so far is 11.244.

While still .245 seconds away from 10.9x, I see this as progress considering that when the car first came out, we were seeing 11.4.

11.2 will win a lot of races. Especially with a hole shot like that.

Furthermore, seeing this driver post up not one, but two 11.2 times, and two 1.61 60 ft times, gives me confidence that the 11.1 reported by C&D was on the up and up.

I'm beginning to wonder if a 1.60 or even a 1.599 60ft time, which is incredible for a street vehicle, might be possible.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this red P90DL on the video is wearing aftermarket lighter wheels
That could be a reason it did 11.2
 
If they are lightened wheels, then it WILL make a difference. So much for the 11.2 second outlier. Guess we're back to 11.3s as being the fastest confirmed stock P90DL times.

regardless of the latest magazine test...
I just want to know how Tesla can claim 10.9 when no one is close to that. Was that down hill with an anorexic driver and lightning hit it just right from the clock tower ?
 
regardless of the latest magazine test...
I just want to know how Tesla can claim 10.9 when no one is close to that. Was that down hill with an anorexic driver and lightning hit it just right from the clock tower ? ��

How could they have claimed 691 horsepower from the motors when you only get 463 hp from the motors with the supplied battery?

The answer is simple. You put in their currently-in-development-100KWH battery, produce a 10.9 second 1/4 mile and then ship it with a battery that that can't produce the same time. But hey, it'll do it with the right power source :scared:
 
I got 11.24 on the vbox and at the track.....

I think 11.199999 is possible.... certainly not 10's...



11.199 is still a "11.1" time in drag strip language. Given Dragtimes reported 11.24 (although only v-box), and the C&D car was a lightly configured model (and they said they did close to full SOC), I don't see why that time is so unbelievable.

- - - Updated - - -


I tested before and after wheels, no difference, just noise between different runs....



If they are lightened wheels, then it WILL make a difference. So much for the 11.2 second outlier. Guess we're back to 11.3s as being the fastest confirmed stock P90DL times.
 
There has been a lot of talks regarding ET of 10.9, but what about trap speed?
MT clocked such high speed, but we are only seeing mid 110s
It needs a lot more power to cross 120, no?

I don't think it needs more power. I think it needs to deliver more of the power it has. That's what all my simulations with an ideal transmission like the Model S has tell me.
 
There has been a lot of talks regarding ET of 10.9, but what about trap speed?
MT clocked such high speed, but we are only seeing mid 110s
It needs a lot more power to cross 120, no?

A P90DL is putting about 480 hp at the wheels, so yes, it needs more power to increase the exit speed given it's weight. The current exit speeds are what you expect for an ICE which puts the same power down to the wheels but the ETs are way faster than you'd expect due to more power being put down at the low RPMs.

The best weight to reduce is the outside of the wheels where the car has to not only accelerate it linearly but rotationally as well. This is why wheel weight reduction has a far bigger effect than the same weight elsewhere only linearly accelerated.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it needs more power. I think it needs to deliver more of the power it has. That's what all my simulations with an ideal transmission like the Model S has tell me.

Tell me, what simulation can you show me where a Tesla produces more power over the curve to the wheels either with a different final drive ratio or a multi speed transmission? If you're adding a second gear to make it more efficient above 120, how are you factoring in the additional drivetrain loss across the board by adding a transmission?

The PD is already only losing 6.5% of the power from the motor shafts to the wheels. There is no AWD ICE on the planet that can come even close to that.
 
If they are lightened wheels, then it WILL make a difference. So much for the 11.2 second outlier. Guess we're back to 11.3s as being the fastest confirmed stock P90DL times.

So why was he also running 11.3 with the same wheels?

If his wheels make such a difference, well then why hasn't he been consistently running 11.2 or better since the day he put them on? Why has he been struggling to break 11.3 just like the other drivers with stock wheels.

No, I'm not ready to discount his results.

If his wheels are lighter, and I don't know that they are, well then the result should be less rotating mass, requiring less power to turn them.

Why are his trap speeds in line with everyone else's if that's the case?

He would also have reduced his unsprung weight. So again, why are his trap speeds in line with the others if his wheels are giving him an advantage?
 
Last edited:
So why was he also running 11.3 with the same wheels?

If his wheels make such a difference, well then why hasn't he been running 11.2 since the day he put them on? Why has he been struggling to break 11.3 just like the other drivers with stock wheels.

No, I'm not ready to discount his results.

If his wheels are lighter, and I don't know that they are, well then the result should be less rotating mass, requiring less power to turn them.

Why are his trap speeds in line with everyone else's if that's the case?

He would also have reduced his unsprung weight. So again, why are his trap speeds in line with the others if his wheels are giving him an advantage?

Everyone elses? Well, I agree that all the trap speeds of the P90DL are within 150 ms of each other which is extremely consistent. ICE cars of the same model and setup have much bigger differences even with the same drivers.
 
Tell me, what simulation can you show me where a Tesla produces more power over the curve to the wheels either with a different final drive ratio or a multi speed transmission? If you're adding a second gear to make it more efficient above 120, how are you factoring in the additional drivetrain loss across the board by adding a transmission?

The PD is already only losing 6.5% of the power from the motor shafts to the wheels. There is no AWD ICE on the planet that can come even close to that.

Ideal transmission means there is no gearing. Conversion of power into different torques is done purely based on torque capacity, therefore power delivery is only limited by I^2R losses in and from the battery, and backemf in the motors. The only purpose of a second gear would be to reduce back emf losses. I can only suspect that either this is very high, or that Tesla is pulling back power way ahead of time. Or it may be both, in order to keep the motor from overheating they may have to reduce power as efficiency decreases, otherwise you have a several hundred kW heater.

So we've established a power number around 30-60 mph. How much power do you think is being put down instantaneously at 120mph?
 
Everyone elses? Well, I agree that all the trap speeds of the P90DL are within 150 ms of each other which is extremely consistent. ICE cars of the same model and setup have much bigger differences even with the same drivers.

I'm not referring to ICE vehicles.

When I say everyone else's I'm referring to the other P90D drivers.

My point is that we're not seeing 120-121mph trap speeds from fiksgts like the magazines claim. On the contrary, he's still in the one, one, teens like everyone else n the P90D.
 
Last edited:
I also meant the other P90DLs with those two words.

Very well. Sorry, I didn't realize that your question was rhetorical in nature. I thought that you were asking because you weren't entirely sure of what I meant, and the rest of your response indicated some uncertainty as to what I meant.

My response to the remainder of your post was merely an attempt at confirming that your assessment of what I had meant was accurate.

I was just confirming my point on the chance that I had been unsuccessful the first time in getting it across.

But while attempting to keep the thread on track, and I'm certainly conceding that while 11.1 while is impressive, is surely is not 10.9, are you inclined to believe that the Car and Driver reported result was actually obtained and not a corrected number?

Note that I'm not asking you if it was or wasn't. I'm asking if you are inclined to believe that it was or wasn't, i.e. Is it plausible?
 
Last edited: