-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times
- Thread starter zooooooom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
It's not rocket science either, no pun intended.
My cards on the table.
I'm a member of other ICE centric car forums and am a life long gearhead.
Among the things I see on those fora, are a near relentless bashing of Tesla Motors, Tesla owners, Elon Musk, EVs, and one of the favorites, pointing to us and and Tesla Motors as tax scofflaws, taking advantage of the $7,500.00 tax benefit.
I come in here, and I see some of the same thing. Tesla bashing. But of a different type.
The point of attack is different, but make no mistake, it seems to be every bit as relentless.
The shameful thing about it, is its coming from Tesla owners.
Granted not some of the same attacks, but plenty of attacks none the less.
Claims of dishonesty, underhandedness, just seem to roll off the tongues of some of us. An almost knee jerk reaction to blame the company for cheating us out of something or another.
Tesla is guilty until proven innocent.
I guess that's why I'm so reluctant to jump in in the innuendo if not outright accusations, of impropriety here when it comes to this issue.
Thing is though, if you think Tesla has done you wrong, cheated you, to the point where you're kicking and screaming about it, think they're so treacherous, cunning and quick to deceive, well then why continue to do business with them?
We holler that they gypped us out of our horsepower, then turn right back around and "pay" them for what we say we already paid for, and now when a thus far handful of owners have been to this point unsuccessful in running a 10 second time, we're ready to start up again with accusations of deceit.
That's what's strange here.
And now the latest gripe we're seeing.
"Tesla used to post a spec that just any and everybody could easily hit. Now they don't."
Seriously??? That the spec is harder to hit, is something to complain about???
In the wake of all the cutting edge technology we have in these cars here, that's something to complain about?
Last edited:
Correct...
I have forged 19" wheels and they save 10lbs per corner vs. OEM 19" and 15lbs vs. OEM 21" for 1 tenth.
Yes a Pano roof... delete for another tenth.
And what you've described there, would just about do it.
One other thing. It also appears to have a carbon fiber rear spoiler.
Good for Increasing downforce and providing stability at high speeds, but they can also increase drag.
If I were looking to leave no stone unturned in an effort to get bottom line quarter mile times in this car, leaving it stock, then among some of the things already mentioned such as no dual chargers, no sunroof, lighter stock wheel and tire setup, I'd also leave off the carbon fiber spoiler of the style seen on our cars.
It's probably more decorative than beneficial on a quarter mile drag strip.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Ah, I see what is going on here now that you have spelled it out.
You are the self appointed Tesla defender to protect the company against the ignorant spoiled customer.
Enjoy the roll but please do not waste my time telling me we owners can not discuss the evolution of a company we all obviously admire and appreciate. Save your chastising for your kids.
You're points are valid on the pure factual analysis of the PxxD's performance evolution. With luck, someone may actually make it to Tesla's published numbers. You are equally lacking a fundamental understanding of what Tesla has done in the past and how they have evolved. You have used this position of ignorance to try to turn a point about the evolution of a company into some kind of a Ford/Chevy discussion instead of simply educating yourself on Tesla's past practices.
I'm not sure what the goal is. Perhaps it is to see the books you write as posts up on the screen or simply to drift fish for reaction but it is clear that what little merit there is to your posts is lost in the fud that comes along with them. You may be steeped in the old ways of ICE doing business and be perfectly happy with that. Others here have known better, thus know it can be different and want Tesla to return to that higher standard.
You are the self appointed Tesla defender to protect the company against the ignorant spoiled customer.
Enjoy the roll but please do not waste my time telling me we owners can not discuss the evolution of a company we all obviously admire and appreciate. Save your chastising for your kids.
You're points are valid on the pure factual analysis of the PxxD's performance evolution. With luck, someone may actually make it to Tesla's published numbers. You are equally lacking a fundamental understanding of what Tesla has done in the past and how they have evolved. You have used this position of ignorance to try to turn a point about the evolution of a company into some kind of a Ford/Chevy discussion instead of simply educating yourself on Tesla's past practices.
I'm not sure what the goal is. Perhaps it is to see the books you write as posts up on the screen or simply to drift fish for reaction but it is clear that what little merit there is to your posts is lost in the fud that comes along with them. You may be steeped in the old ways of ICE doing business and be perfectly happy with that. Others here have known better, thus know it can be different and want Tesla to return to that higher standard.
"Discussing the evolution of the company. lol
If it were just that, then that would be one thing. But in fact it's quite another.
And if I am to save my chastizing for my kids, well then by all means please save any attempt to paint what is happening here in the recent discussion between you and I as anything than what it actually is. An attempt to go just to the edge of calling the 10.9 matter a falsehood, while taking great effort to make it look like less of an attempt.
Let's take a look:
Not “perfectly accurate”, you say. :lol:
Well what do we call it, when one makes a deliberate attempt to be "not perfectly accurate"?
Especially since the usual benefit of such an effort, the usual fruit to be gained in an endeavor of not being “perfectly accurate”, is deception.
What do we call it when one attempts to deceive?
Well, it’s usually a lie. But we won't go quite that far. No need to. One can deceive others by telling part truths as well.
In either case, whether it is an outright lie, or a deliberate attempt to tell part of the truth, the goal is generally to deceive.
But what was it you called what you were doing here?, Ah yes, you say words to the effect that “we are discussing Tesla’s evolution”, and observers are not supposed to be swift enough to see yet another accusations of deception.
And again:
Well hold on. I thougt that the discussion was on their “evolution".
How can it be on their “evolution” that we are discussing, if it’s your position that they’ve been doing this “almost from the beginning”?
But again, it seems that we weren’t supposed to be saavy enough to catch that.
And then again
Please “do” or “do not” ???
It appears that you meant to say “do not” and that you were asking me to not paint anything that you had said as calling Tesla a liar..
But my point is, if you haven’t accused them of lying, well then it appears that you are at least accusing them of intent to deceive.
Furthermore, lets look at your prior comment a bit closer.
"Other games almost from the very beginning" you say.
Well in that, you are establishing that they have a "pattern" of deception.
If you are describing a pattern of deception, well then how is it on their “evolution” if it’s your position that they’ve been doing this, what was it again, ah yes...... “almost from the beginning”.????
But again, it seems that we weren’t supposed to be saavy enough to catch that.
No, what's going on here, is a little more than discussing the evolution of the company. What I see are veiled efforts at accusing them of deception.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Enough.
P85DEE,
I just started to respond with a book of my own but then realized I was falling into the troll trap.
Tesla used to publish performance numbers customers could meet and even exceed. That is simply not the case with the P90DL. It is simple fact, not opinion or conjecture. I will no longer debate issue with you.
P85DEE,
I just started to respond with a book of my own but then realized I was falling into the troll trap.
Tesla used to publish performance numbers customers could meet and even exceed. That is simply not the case with the P90DL. It is simple fact, not opinion or conjecture. I will no longer debate issue with you.
Nor I with you.
My position is that it's early yet in terms of number of drivers who have made attempts, and thus "at this point", it is unfair to imply any impropriety on Tesla's part with regard to this matter.
You've stated your position, I've stated mine.
Nothing else really need be said.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Tesla quoted 10.9 sec for the 1/4 mile, not 10.999, so in my opinion the fastest time by a private individual is not .153 sec off the 10.9 but .252, a full 1/4 second. I will be very surprised if any private P90DL owner will match the spec without some sort of upgrade.
I changed my original order from a P85 to a P85D at $30,000 more to get the 691 horsepower. Foolish me not realizing what motor power meant requiring battery power that was not available. I paid the extra $5,360 for ludicrous patiently waiting 9 months after the announcement to have the quickest car. I certainly enjoy ludicrous and Tesla was correct this time that the improvement was only 0.20 sec.
Lolachampcar has earned my respect over the last two years in my following these posts. Tesla will have more respect if claims can be backed up.
I changed my original order from a P85 to a P85D at $30,000 more to get the 691 horsepower. Foolish me not realizing what motor power meant requiring battery power that was not available. I paid the extra $5,360 for ludicrous patiently waiting 9 months after the announcement to have the quickest car. I certainly enjoy ludicrous and Tesla was correct this time that the improvement was only 0.20 sec.
Lolachampcar has earned my respect over the last two years in my following these posts. Tesla will have more respect if claims can be backed up.
10.900 and 10.999 are both 10.9.
In drag racing, anything less than 11.000 but more than 10.899 is a 10.9.
If I dial in an 11.000 and run a 10.999, I've broken out.
If I dial in a 10.900 and run any 10.9 higher than that, then I don't.
Unless I run 10.899, which is a 10.8, I don't break out.
A P90D with Ludicrous only need hit 10.999 in order to confirm Tesla's claim.
This is why it's only about .153 seconds off the spec thus far.
Last edited:
When I bought my P85+ in August '13, I felt comfortable telling others that it did 0-60 in 4.2 per Tesla, 3.9 per Motor Trend and others. Similarly, I have felt comfortable quoting other performance specs. Since I find myself talking to people I never had occasion to speak with in the past -- "car people", "gear heads", muscle car guys outside of bars -- I like feeling that I can report *awesome* numbers for what could otherwise be viewed from some angles as a family sedan -- and be speaking truthfully. Even though *I myself* have not reproduced these numbers. Well... I've conducted a certain amount of "informal" testing.
I recall a discussion with a little Tesla birdie prior to the release of Insane mode, in which he reported achieving 0-60 in 2.8 in some internal testing. Insane, not Ludicrous. When Tesla finally released Insane, they claimed 3.2. And people apparently routinely achieved or even beat that. When I later asked this same birdie why claim 4.2 instead of 3.9? He said, better to report a little conservatively... not only will no one complain if they beat that time, they'll be thrilled. Dunno what he'd say today.
So, yeah, P85DEE... I'm one of your cognitively dissonant fretful types, who will worry about what he can rely on when he speaks to others, is disappointed at what I also perceive to be a change in Tesla specsmanship since '13, and yet sometime between Aug-Nov may very well plop down another $150K for the latest P90DL or (I hope!) P100DL.
One other thing: I looked at an additional 4 or 5 timeslips that were on the side of the web page that you pointed to, P85DEE. I saw 11.3, 11.4. Admittedly small sample size but if one were to characterize on that basis, it's a car that might arguably be reported as doing 11.4 in the quarter-mile, with some people having success pushing it harder.
Alan
Is this honestly how the drag racing community -- or SOME community -- thinks?
Foreign to my understanding as an engineer.
I'd've said that 4.2 0-60 means something like, "mean very close to 4.200 with one standard deviation out to roughly 4.300 on one side and 4.100 on the other."
The thought that 10.999 means "10.9" seems like an abomination.
Thanks,
Alan
I totally disagree. I have been drag racing for 57 years and a 10.900 is not the same as 10.999. The 10.900 car is .099 faster than the 10.999 car. As your examples state if you go .001 seconds faster than your dial-in you lose. As a registered engineer I can do simple math. If you are rounding a time to the nearest .1 sec then I could buy a time of 10.949 as a 10.9 but anything slower needs to be rounded up to 11.0.
You can disagree if you like.
If you've bracket raced then you know there is no rounding up.
If I dial in an 11.00 and run any 10.9, be it a 10.94 or a 10.95, I can't argue "well guys just round that 10.95 up to the nearest .1 for an 11".
I automatically lose if my opponent doesn't break out.
And I lose because I didn't run an 11.
I ran a 10.9. ......and that's whether I ran a 10.900 or a 10.999. Either would cause me to lose if my opponent doesn't break out.
Anywhere in the 10s would cause me to break out.
Furthermore if my car runs 11.0 in the quarter and yours runs 11.9 in the quarter then we both have 11 second cars.
Doesn't matter how deep I am in the 11s or if you just squeak into them. We both have 11 second cars.
And until you or I break 11 seconds, then we're both running 11s.
Finally if I'm running 10.99 and you're running 10.92 then both of our cars are running in the 10.9s.
Part of this whole mess is centered around an unrealistic expectation. An expectation which from the discussion here appears to be 10.900.
Tesla promised a 10.9 car. Not one of which is flirting with the 10.8s.
They didn't say "where" or "how deep into" the 10.9s it would be.
Thus anywhere in the 10.9s is good enough to validate their claim.
Once this car hits 10.9 anything then it's run a 10.9.
Another important point, when it comes to the 0-60 times for the PxxD cars, Tesla appears to using the "drag strip" as somewhat of a guide. Hence the use of rollout.
I'd expect them to let the customary acts and procedural customs on a drag strip dictate here too.
Last edited:
When I bought my P85+ in August '13, I felt comfortable telling others that it did 0-60 in 4.2 per Tesla, 3.9 per Motor Trend and others. Similarly, I have felt comfortable quoting other performance specs. Since I find myself talking to people I never had occasion to speak with in the past -- "car people", "gear heads", muscle car guys outside of bars -- I like feeling that I can report *awesome* numbers for what could otherwise be viewed from some angles as a family sedan -- and be speaking truthfully. Even though *I myself* have not reproduced these numbers. Well... I've conducted a certain amount of "informal" testing.
I recall a discussion with a little Tesla birdie prior to the release of Insane mode, in which he reported achieving 0-60 in 2.8 in some internal testing. Insane, not Ludicrous. When Tesla finally released Insane, they claimed 3.2. And people apparently routinely achieved or even beat that. When I later asked this same birdie why claim 4.2 instead of 3.9? He said, better to report a little conservatively... not only will no one complain if they beat that time, they'll be thrilled. Dunno what he'd say today.
So, yeah, P85DEE... I'm one of your cognitively dissonant fretful types, who will worry about what he can rely on when he speaks to others, is disappointed at what I also perceive to be a change in Tesla specsmanship since '13, and yet sometime between Aug-Nov may very well plop down another $150K for the latest P90DL or (I hope!) P100DL.
One other thing: I looked at an additional 4 or 5 timeslips that were on the side of the web page that you pointed to, P85DEE. I saw 11.3, 11.4. Admittedly small sample size but if one were to characterize on that basis, it's a car that might arguably be reported as doing 11.4 in the quarter-mile, with some people having success pushing it harder.
Alan
You're looking at the "successful" time slips which were submitted.
Your don't see the failures. You don't see the slips of those who did not make the spec. Nor do we know how many tried and failed.
This is what I took him to task on his "most" comment.
Last edited:
The P90DL is an 11.4 second car. That's what most of the timeslips show. That's what most of the examples out there get. Outliers with unusual factors and tailwinds don't count.
If you had to by a P90DL without any options that add weight and use 19" wheels to get that time, then Tesla should have qualified it with an asterisk for a specific configuration. Even then 11.0 and 10.9 have never been cracked.
I have no problem talking about what it would take to get a P90D down to 10.9999999999999 seconds with tailwinds, reducing weight, trying different tires and wheels, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that Tesla advertises a 10.9 second car which it just isn't.
If you had to by a P90DL without any options that add weight and use 19" wheels to get that time, then Tesla should have qualified it with an asterisk for a specific configuration. Even then 11.0 and 10.9 have never been cracked.
I have no problem talking about what it would take to get a P90D down to 10.9999999999999 seconds with tailwinds, reducing weight, trying different tires and wheels, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that Tesla advertises a 10.9 second car which it just isn't.
Similar threads
- Article
