Wiki Model S Delivery Update

[CWhite]

Isn’t the button ‘Drag Strip Mode’? Every dragstrip I’ve been to for years has traction compound applied. I think it is totally reasonable to quote times achieved with traction compound. 1 foot rollout? NHRA uses it and they set the rules for drag racing in the USA. As long as it applies evenly to car comparisons I have no problem with it. If the button was called ‘Stop Light Race Mode’ then I would feel differently.

 

[rhuber]

I cannot wait to regular folks to hit these numbers and maybe get some of these car mags to adjust their attitude a bit. I mean if goofball here can hit 2.1s on some random California backroad, I am sure someone with some access to flat, smooth asphalt can get under 2 sec. heck, finding a driver closer to their ideal BMI is probably good for another tenth of a sec.

I, for one, eagerly await the first time I'm kicked off of a drag strip for having too fast a car.

 

[lolachampcar]

It used to be-
It may do a XYZ 0-60 but it will only do it once or twice before it overheats
It may accelerate hard from a dead stop but it is a dog up top and everything passes it
The interior is not up to the standards of a car costing this much
The cabin is too loud
and on and on

Looks like Tesla has addressed a few dings on the Model S but we still need something to talk about. So-
The wheel sucks
The car is xyz tenths/hundredths milliseconds slower then Elon said (even though you actually can get the sub 2 second performance in - wait for it - drag strip mode Note: CWhite beat me to it. I wonder if they meant for the number to be achieved at a drag strip???)

People are people. We want something to complain about. MT needs something to complain about least they be accused of being in Tesla's pocket.

It really is all good. The refresh (both LR and Plaid) are going to rock everyone's world. What is Audi going to do? BMW? MB? and heaven forbid, Porsche? Perhaps they can pick on the wheel and the "fact" that the Plaid ONLY does sub 2s on a prep'd drag strip

I suspect Elon knows the wheel sucks. He's just reveling in all the free publicity as everyone talks about it sucking.

 

[AnselmDante]

heck, finding a driver closer to their ideal BMI is probably good for another tenth of a sec.

Not when you are talking about a close to 5000 lb car. 50-80 lbs won't mean much. That's less than 2% of the weight.

 

[EVonly]

If hundredths of a second didn't matter, why did Tesla say 1.99 and not 2.0? Hundredths matter. Why don't they race to the nearest tenth of a second? It matters.

And also, if hundredths don't matter, then we are not talking about 8 hundredths of a second, we are talking about a tenth of a second, because you would round to the nearest tenth. So from your perspective, they ran a 2.1 second 0-60. You can't say it doesn't matter, and then round the number the wrong way to support your feelings.

I personally don't care about a specific test or validation, but numbers are numbers.

I agree with you, they should have said 2 seconds instead of 1.99. Having said that, we are talking about the first third party test ever conducted. Have you ever seen how variable 0-60 times are between different magazines? The same car gets wildly different numbers measured in 10ths not hundredths depending on testing conditions. The actual number they tested was so close, that there is absolutely no reason for us to assume that the number Tesla advertised is unattainable.

Your point about numbers being numbers is accurate, but my point is that in the real world no one is going to not buy a Plaid because it only did 0-60 in 2.07 seconds instead of 1.99 on the first 3rd party testing. Do you somehow think you could feel the difference without instrumentation?

 

[Tigers]

It used to be-
It may do a XYZ 0-60 but it will only do it once or twice before it overheats
It may accurate hard from a dead stop but it is a dog up top and everything passes it
The interior is not up to the standards of a car costing this much
The cabin is too loud
and on and on

Looks like Tesla has addressed a few dings on the Model S but we still need something to talk about. So-
The wheel sucks
The car is xyz tenths/hundredths milliseconds slower then Elon said (even though you actually can get the sub 2 second performance in - wait for it - drag strip mode Note: CWhite beat me to it. I wonder if they meant for the number to be achieved at a drag strip???)

People are people. We want something to complain about. MT needs something to complain about least they be accused of being in Tesla's pocket.

It really is all good. The refresh (both LR and Plaid) are going to rock everyone's world. What is Audi going to do? BMW? MB? and heaven forbid, Porsche? Perhaps they can pick on the wheel and the "fact" that the Plaid ONLY does sub 2s on a prep'd drag strip

Oh, please. It's a marketing gimmick. Less than .01% (how about that?) of Plaid Model S owners will ever go to the dragstrip and therefore, will never get to feel the marketed acceleration.

Meanwhile, I can go buy a C8 Corvette and hit 2.8s on a flat asphalt road as advertised. Which has been reproduced by many, many people.

 

[rhuber]

I mean if you folks wanna go there, I can prove that my Model 3 Performance had an actual, real world, 0-60 time of 18 seconds with the accelerator at 100%, and have video to prove it.

Caveat: I recorded this with a cold soaked battery during the POLAR VORTEX that hit the midwest a couple of years ago. That said, it is a legitimate 0-60, but conditions always matter...

 

[lolachampcar]

I agree with you, they should have said 2 seconds instead of 1.99. Having said that, we are talking about the first third party test ever conducted. Have you ever seen how variable 0-60 times are between different magazines? The same car gets wildly different numbers measured in 10ths not hundredths depending on testing conditions. The actual number they tested was so close, that there is absolutely no reason for us to assume that the number Tesla advertised is unattainable.

Your point about numbers being numbers is accurate, but my point is that in the real world no one is going to not buy a Plaid because it only did 0-60 in 2.07 seconds instead of 1.99 on the first 3rd party testing. Do you somehow think you could feel the difference without instrumentation?

Your likely correct here but the one flaw I see is that MT claims Tesla insisted on the prep'd drag strip to achieve the number which seems to indicate that it is needed to achieve the number.

 

[TorqueMonster]

If hundredths of a second didn't matter, why did Tesla say 1.99 and not 2.0? Hundredths matter. Why don't they race to the nearest tenth of a second? It matters.

And also, if hundredths don't matter, then we are not talking about 8 hundredths of a second, we are talking about a tenth of a second, because you would round to the nearest tenth. So from your perspective, they ran a 2.1 second 0-60. You can't say it doesn't matter, and then round the number the wrong way to support your feelings.

I personally don't care about a specific test or validation, but numbers are numbers.

I think what he is saying is that from a true real world difference, it is insignificant. This number is so small that the errors in the sensor measurements can be on that scale. I am curious to see the data for all the trials they did. And I would be curious to see what type of equipment they used to do the measurement and look at the accuracy (within 1-3 standard deviations) associated with the device. Did they use a VBOX? if so we can get those numbers.

As trying to attain a specific man made bench mark, yes it matters. This is to your point. And your point is very valid. 1.99 < 2.

And my point is that the number is so small (8/100) that it is likely that other trials will be below that. Heck go put in a driver that weighs 30 lbs less and you are probably there.

I think we all agree and are just pointing out different aspects of the problem.

 

[aerodyne]

Not when you are talking about a close to 5000 lb car. 50-80 lbs won't mean much. That's less than 2% of the weight.

.98 * 2.07=2.03. halfway there!

 

[AnselmDante]

I agree with you, they should have said 2 seconds instead of 1.99. Having said that, we are talking about the first third party test ever conducted. Have you ever seen how variable 0-60 times are between different magazines? The same car gets wildly different numbers measured in 10ths not hundredths depending on testing conditions. The actual number they tested was so close, that there is absolutely no reason for us to assume that the number Tesla advertised is unattainable.

Your point about numbers being numbers is accurate, but my point is that in the real world no one is going to not buy a Plaid because it only did 0-60 in 2.07 seconds instead of 1.99 on the first 3rd party testing. Do you somehow think you could feel the difference without instrumentation?

I don't think I could feel the difference. I also agree they should not have said 1.99. But the numbers of the tests are what they are. The past few pages sounds like everyone is taking this personally, and trying to justify why the tests don't matter.

When you see a run of under 2 seconds, that is the time to say everyone who doubted Tesla was wrong. The picking apart of why the tests don't matter because of Telsa haters, motivations of the testers, etc., just comes off as sour grapes.

Being the first production car under 2 seconds is a super cool claim. They haven't proven it yet.

 

[EndlessPlaid]

I cannot wait to regular folks to hit these numbers and maybe get some of these car mags to adjust their attitude a bit. I mean if goofball here can hit 2.1s on some random California backroad, I am sure someone with some access to flat, smooth asphalt can feet under 2 sec. heck, finding a driver closer to their ideal BMI is probably good for another tenth of a sec.

Absolutely! At the very slowest, I bet by the time summer's out, someone will have banged off a good 2.02-2.05. At the very fastest on an unprepped surface, it's possible someone may crack a 2.0 flat 0-60.
For the record BTW, nothing personal against MT here. To see mainstream media praising a new Tesla vehicle, and giving such a glowing review to the Plaid is an awesome thing. It's just that you could almost feel through reading it that they were extremely displeased to have been made to use the VHT side the of the track. However, that doesn't mean that the other magazines will feel the same way, and that's when we can probably expect to start seeing maybe even more enthusiasm in the review, and possibly some better numbers as well.

 

[lbowroom]

Yes Tigers, Elon and Tesla are evil liars and Plaids are stupid and slow. Help get the word out! Good grief, obviously sarcasm….

 

[TorqueMonster]

Your likely correct here but the one flaw I see is that MT claims Tesla insisted on the prep'd drag strip to achieve the number which seems to indicate that it is needed to achieve the number.

it would certainly seem that way, or like I said they wanted a guarantee on the first test .

 

[aerodyne]

Back to delivery....would we need a new Frunk Matt? It looks smaller...

 

[TorqueMonster]

I cannot wait to regular folks to hit these numbers and maybe get some of these car mags to adjust their attitude a bit. I mean if goofball here can hit 2.1s on some random California backroad, I am sure someone with some access to flat, smooth asphalt can get under 2 sec. Heck, finding a driver closer to their ideal BMI is probably good for another tenth of a sec.

You took the words out of my mouth. you are right on

 

[Tigers]

Yes Tigers, Elon and Tesla are evil liars and Plaids are stupid and slow. Help get the word out!

Hey if people are going to *sugar* on this EE guy, at least step up and say why you think he is wrong when literally no one has proven it out yet.

Tesla had special, controlled conditions that very little to, let's be honest, zero Plaid customers will ever be able replicate because, like he said, you need a roll cage to go to the strip, which the tesla isnt equipped with. It's a marketing ploy, nothing that EE dude said with his main argument was incorrect.

 

[AnselmDante]

I think what he is saying is that from a true real world difference, it is insignificant. This number is so small that the errors in the sensor measurements can be on that scale. I am curious to see the data for all the trials they did. And I would be curious to see what type of equipment they used to do the measurement and look at the accuracy (within 1-3 standard deviations) associated with the device. Did they use a VBOX? if so we can get those numbers.

As trying to attain a specific man made bench mark, yes it matters. This is to your point. And your point is very valid. 1.99 < 2.

And my point is that the number is so small (8/100) that it is likely that other trials will be below that. Heck go put in a driver that weighs 30 lbs less and you are probably there.

I think we all agree and are just pointing out different aspects of the problem.

Any swim fans here? records are broken by hundredths of a second constantly. Horse win races by that margin, as do car races. It's not as inconsequential as you are all trying to make it. 1.99 to 2.07 is a difference of 3.8%.

 

[lolachampcar]

I think Brooks might disagree with you on the "zero Plaid customers will ever replicate". Knowing him, he is probably going to have his Plaid delivered at PBIR. It almost seems like he lives there.

 

[lbowroom]

Tesla had special, controlled conditions that very little to, let's be honest, zero Plaid customers will ever replicate. It's a marketing ploy, nothing that EE dude said with his main argument was incorrect.

Wasn’t his initial tag line 1.99 NOPE!