real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times

[P85DEE]

Remember when we had slick willy arguing the definition of "is"? That's all I'm reading here. There has definitely not been multiple. Motortrend got a ringer or applied some mathematical "correction" to their car. Show me a a non-ringer car with a professional driver achieving that time.

Well wait a minute? How do we know that it was a ringer? How do we know that?

Just because a handful of attempts by a handful of owners have thus far fallen short, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done.

That's quite an accusation. And the burden of proof is on the accuser.

All that can be said to this point, is that we've seen no reports just yet of 10.999 in a privately owned car.

However we can point to a privately owned car which has come .153 seconds shy of that.

 

[AWDtsla]

Well wait a minute? How do we know that it was a ringer? How do we know that?

Just because a handful of attempts by a handful of owners have thus far fallen short, doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be done.

That's quite an accusation. And the burden of proof is on the accuser.

All that can be said to this point, is that we've seen no reports just yet of 10.999 in a privately owned car.

However we can point to a privately owned car which has come .153 seconds shy of that.

What steaming pile of....

 

[P85DEE]

Remember when we had slick willy arguing the definition of "is"? That's all I'm reading here. There has definitely not been multiple. Motortrend got a ringer or applied some mathematical "correction" to their car. Show me a a non-ringer car with a professional driver achieving that time.

I read your post again, and upon reading it a second time one major point stood out to me, as someone had mentioned something similar in another discussion, and that was the use of correction factors in the Motor Trend results, or even in Motor Trend's and Tesla's results.

With the information that we have, it's impossible to completely rule that possibilities out.

However until Tesla admits or otherwise gives reason to believe that they were using correction factors to arrive at their 10.9 claim, I'm going to believe that their result was uncorrected.

What a steaming pile of....

Well until you can either prove or Tesla admits or Motor Trend admits that theirs is a corrected result, then you're just speculating that it is. Unless you have some proof that you aren't telling us about.

The best raw result obtained thus far, and from a small sample of cars is still but a mere .153 seconds away from substantiating Tesla's claim of a 10.9 quarter mile.

Think about it. How do you explain an improvement over the original P90D Ludicrous best result of 11.403 vs the current P90D Ludicrous best of 11.152??? A difference of .251 seconds and with no announced addition of power.

What??? Negative DA?

Look, AWDtsla, it's just cars. And I'm not as ready right now as perhaps you are to accuse Tesla of stating a false quarter mile result, and I've stated why.

Don't let that get to you and cause you to start you "pulling rank", and alluding to tenure and such.

You state your reasons for believing that 10.9 is not on the up and up, and I state mine as to why I think it well could be.

Time will possibly prove one or the other of us right.

I'm just saying that I'm willing to wait awhile longer and see some more attempts and examples for that to happen as opposed to right now proclaiming that it won't or can't happen.

 

[lolachampcar]

Funny
You can not show a single ten second run all though you have no problem extrapolating to one....
I can point you to the web page that advertises a ten second run.
You can not point to one thread pre P85D of Tesla exaggerating their specifications.
I remember several where people commented that the car was actually fast than Tesla said it was (for a few different releases).
You want me to prove my Opinion.
Funny

All of this is a distraction from the point. The point is my Tesla has changed and it is not a change for the better. No witch hunts. No angry mobs with pitchforks. Just sadness as they were different in a special kinda of way before this change and now they are, as you've pointed out, just like all the rest.

You keep writing volumes of explanation which is simply an attempt to rewrite history. Normally I am not so hard headed. I usually just move on but there is something about your tenacity on this one that has me wanting to make sure reality is represented along side your posts.

"Honey, what are you doing up so late?????"
"There is someone on the internet that is wrong and I gotta fix it!!!"

Yep, I guess I'm that idiot.


Shotgun,
I see your avatar and I want to go get one of those "I was inverted" Ts with a 14 X over an F5

 

[P85DEE]

Funny
You can not show a single ten second run all though you have no problem extrapolating to one....
I can point you to the web page that advertises a ten second run.
You can not point to one thread pre P85D of Tesla exaggerating their specifications.
I remember several where people commented that the car was actually fast than Tesla said it was (for a few different releases).
You want me to prove my Opinion.
Funny

All of this is a distraction from the point. The point is my Tesla has changed and it is not a change for the better. No witch hunts. No angry mobs with pitchforks. Just sadness as they were different in a special kinda of way before this change and now they are, as you've pointed out, just like all the rest.

You keep writing volumes of explanation which is simply an attempt to rewrite history. Normally I am not so hard headed. I usually just move on but there is something about your tenacity on this one that has me wanting to make sure reality is represented along side your posts.

"Honey, what are you doing up so late?????"
"There is someone on the internet that is wrong and I gotta fix it!!!"

Yep, I guess I'm that idiot.


Shotgun,
I see your avatar and I want to go get one of those "I was inverted" Ts with a 14 X over an F5

I didn't read any of that, but I'm going to bet that at no point did you ever point to anything, no links, no nothing, verifying your statement with regard to performance figures of prior Tesla models: "most owners bettered the published number."

I admit that sounds good and is nice to believe. But is it true?

What appears to have happened here, is twofold.

I think that it just may be premature at this point, and for all the reasons I've already listed, to conclude that Tesla must be guilty of misstating the quarter mile number.

It's obvious now that this is a dissenting opinion in here.

However; that it seems to offend you so, and results in the reaction you've displayed, is somewhat saddening to watch.

Sad to watch, because it's just cars.

Secondly, a couple of your comments indicate that you somehow think that your tenure here places you above question. Thus when asked: "hey, I have a question about your last statement. Can you provide a link or something?", your approach is "how dare you question my statement which I cannot prove."

Again, that is something which I never expected to see.

 

[lolachampcar]

Nope.....
Just not going to feed your need for proof by trying to track down someone saying my car was faster than Tesla said it would be. Don't need to. MY cars were faster than Tesla said they would be. So there is a post of someone back in the day that got more than Tesla said they were getting. Are you happy now or are you going to say that my opinion (not opinion, I factually received more than I was promised) does not count? Please do not answer that question; it was rhetorical.

It is worth pointing out that Tesla has played other games almost from the very beginning (and yes, there are threads on the subjects if you want to go looking). The whole price includes gas savings and the time you save not going to the gas station comes to mind along with attempts to hide the full cash price price before tax incentives. My comments are limited to how Tesla represents the performance of their cars.

And no, my grey hair does not make my opinion any more valuable than some young whipper snapper........ Take my statements on face value.

 

[P85DEE]

Nope.....
Just not going to feed your need for proof by trying to track down someone saying my car was faster than Tesla said it would be. Don't need to. MY cars were faster than Tesla said they would be. So there is a post of someone back in the day that got more than Tesla said they were getting. Are you happy now or are you going to say that my opinion (not opinion, I factually received more than I was promised) does not count? Please do not answer that question; it was rhetorical.

It is worth pointing out that Tesla has played other games almost from the very beginning (and yes, there are threads on the subjects if you want to go looking). The whole price includes gas savings and the time you save not going to the gas station comes to mind along with attempts to hide the full cash price price before tax incentives. My comments are limited to how Tesla represents the performance of their cars.

And no, my grey hair does not make my opinion any more valuable than some young whipper snapper........ Take my statements on face value.

Well this time I did read your post, and I'll take it to mean that you cannot demonstrate that "most owners bettered the published number".

Saying that "you" did, unfortunately doesn't confirm that "most" did, which is what you stated.

It was from the position that previously "most" owners had bettered Tesla's specs upon which your argument that what we're seeing now is a deviation from prior practice, was based.

The position that "most" owners bettered Tesla's prior numbers, unfortunately has not been validated.

It happens to all of us. Me, you, everybody. We're all human. But it has been my experience that it is generally better to acknowledge it should one misspeak. And that comment is not meant to offend.

I'm going to summarize my opinion here one more time.

Steady improvement in reported quarter mile results submitted for the P90D with Ludicrous has been witnessed.

The reported results have inched closer to the 10.9 spec stated by Tesla, from a one time deficit of .404 seconds to a current .153 seconds.

With the information available, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty, as a number of things may have happened, correction factors could have been used, etc., but in light of the above I am less inclined than I was previously, to dismiss Tesla's claim of a 10.9 quarter mile.

Further, in light of the above results, and because we do not know the weight and options of the car they're basing their number on, I'm, "at least at this point in time", willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

You and anyone else in here is/are of course welcome to dissenting opinions.

However it is my hope that whatever is the case, that we can remain respectful of one another.

 

[Piney999]

This thread is still waiting for a real world 0-60 time on the S85. I hope it comes soon!

 

[dhrivnak]

My 2008 Roadster reaches 60 in 3.9 seconds and does the quarter mile in 13.1 and 101 mph. Better than the 3 Corvettes, Shelby Cobra and BMW M5 I lined up against at Street Fights in Bristol.

 

[lolachampcar]

and another summary could be.....

Tesla used to publish performance specifications that the average customer could exceed.
Tesla now publishes specifications that no customer has achieved.
Tesla provided a car to a magazine that subsequently confirmed Tesla's published numbers.

This is a change in Tesla's behavior. This is not commentary on if someone somewhere at some point in the future may make Tesla's currently published specification.

Any attempt to say there has not been a change in behavior is an attempt to rewrite history.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Lola is correct. before D the cars were faster than Tesla published + had more HP and torque even
- P85 said 4.4s 0-60 early in 2013 - (changed to 4.2 sometime shortly after) which is higher than the ~4.0 that anyone can get with the correct everything (temps, traction, SOC etc.)

 

[P85DEE]

and another summary could be.....

Tesla used to publish performance specifications that the average customer could exceed.

Well now this is a bit different than stating: "most owners bettered the published number."

You've never shown that to be true.

Now you're saying that "the average customer could exceed them.

It seems as though you're the one attempting a rewrite.

Sounds better though than the previous blanket statement.

Tesla now publishes specifications that no customer has achieved.

"Yet".

But I've already pointed out that no private owner has hit the 10.9 spec "yet" and that this is no indication that one never will.

I'll even go so far as to say that "Tesla has posted a spec which is harder for some to hit".

But what I won't say just yet, as some seem to be saying and ready to say, "Tesla has posted a spec which is impossible to hit and thus a false spec."

Tesla provided a car to a magazine that subsequently confirmed Tesla's published numbers.

Yes, the indication is that they did.

This is a change in Tesla's behavior.

And if it is, then that is Tesla's option. As long as their specifications for the car are accurate.

I don't see where Tesla is compelled to do anything other than state an accurate spec.

They are not necessarily compelled to state a spec that "most owners can better".

So there is no point in complaining if this is in fact what happened.

If they've built a car which will run 10.9, then as long as that is true, it's not their fault if I can't make it go 10.9.

So far, aside from a very few customers trying and failing to reach that number, there is no proof that what Tesla has said is false.

This is not commentary on if someone somewhere at some point in the future may make Tesla's currently published specification.

It's precisely that.

Anyone else doing it in effect vouches for the accuracy of their statement.

Motor Trend appears, at least at this point, to have done that, barring any correction factors.

Any attempt to say there has not been a change in behavior is an attempt to rewrite history.

See above. I think it's you who did the rewrite

 

[sorka]

The P90D is not a 10.9 second car. It's an 11.4 second car where an occasional outlier. It's a solid 11.4 second car with an occasional 11.3 second time and an an extremely rare 11.2 second time, and one off crazy 11.15 second time. Has the 11.53 second time been confirmed? Is there a time slip? Do enough runs at enough tracks and things like tail winds are definitely going to give you an occasional run that is faster than what the car can produce on it's own.

That said, manufacturers have made 1/4 mile claims in the past that are nearly impossible to match without legal consequence. I seriously doubt Tesla is going to get sued over this especially since a class action over hp mis-representation never emerged and that's the area that manufacturers have a history getting into legal trouble with. Performance claims not so much. 1/4 times and 0-60 times have often been nearly impossible to achieve with other manufacturers. What irks a lot of people here is that Tesla had a history of under promising and over delivering but then they completely reversed and if they get sued, they'll just point tons of examples of other makes and models that could never achieve their performance specs either.

 

[P85DEE]

The P90D is not a 10.9 second car. It's an 11.4 second car where an occasional outlier. It's a solid 11.4 second car with an occasional 11.3 second time and an an extremely rare 11.2 second time, and one off crazy 11.15 second time. Has the 11.53 second time been confirmed? Is there a time slip? Do enough runs at enough tracks and things like tail winds are definitely going to give you an occasional run that is faster than what the car can produce on it's own.

That said, manufacturers have made 1/4 mile claims in the past that are nearly impossible to match without legal consequence. I seriously doubt Tesla is going to get sued over this especially since a class action over hp mis-representation never emerged and that's the area that manufacturers have a history getting into legal trouble with. Performance claims not so much. 1/4 times and 0-60 times have often been nearly impossible to achieve with other manufacturers. What irks a lot of people here is that Tesla had a history of under promising and over delivering but then they completely reversed and if they get sued, they'll just point tons of examples of other makes and models that could never achieve their performance specs either.

Yes, there is a time slip.
2016 Tesla Model S P90DL 1/4 Mile Drag Racing

 

[sorka]

Yes, there is a time slip.
2016 Tesla Model S P90DL 1/4 Mile Drag Racing

It's interesting that they're 19" wheels. How many of the P90Ds have 21" wheels which are 40 lbs heavier combined. I'll bet that's good for a tenth.

 

[P85DEE]

It's interesting that they're 19" wheels. How many of the P90Ds have 21" wheels which are 40 lbs heavier combined. I'll bet that's good for a tenth.

You're reading my mind.

I'm also thinking that they could be all season tires.

Also can you tell from the pic if that car has a sunroof?

 

[gsxdsm]

I think this thread needs an asterisk. More asterisks. And 700 more pages.

 

[sorka]

You're reading my mind.

I'm also thinking that they could be all season tires.

Also can you tell from the pic if that car has a sunroof?

It does because it has the front applique. The solid roof cars are body colored on the roof from the windshield back. The red MT car did not have the panoramic roof but it DID have the 21" grays.

I can already tell you though that my 0-60 times with my 21" grays are about 0.03 seconds slower with my vbox than with my 19s. I'm sure that translates into a bit more for a much longer 1/4 mile run.

 

[sorka]

I think this thread needs an asterisk. More asterisks. And 700 more pages.

 

[brianman]

In the epilogue however, the curious, indeed eyebrow raising thing about that whole matter, was that some of the most vocal members of our forum on that topic, some to the point of accusing Tesla of deliberate deceit, were among the first in line to pay for Ludicrous, even though using the methods used in their arguments to arrive at the conclusion that the car didn't make 691hp, and hence they'd been deceived, would still leave it short of that figure after paying Tesla another $5k.

Perhaps surprising to you, but not to me and at least some others. Just further proves that the issue wasn't a money one -- nor an unwillingness to pay for more/better -- but rather an issue in Tesla's behavior and positioning on the matter. We expected better fromTesla, and have been disappointed. They had been better than that, and hopefully one day again will be better than that.