Again with the language games.
Now you've switched to "in the 10.9s" because, I guess, you're starting to realize your "highest possible 10.9" language is, charitably put, "weak".
This really isn't your strong suit.
-
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
Now you've switched to "in the 10.9s" because, I guess, you're starting to realize your "highest possible 10.9" language is, charitably put, "weak".
This really isn't your strong suit.
Well since the discussion centers around results obtained on a drag strip, and these results are the determining factor in here as to if the car is on the mark or not, I thought that was self explanatory.
10.9999 is considered to be the highest of the 10.9s before you run into the 11s.
Well let's see.
If there were any validity to your points, well then several people would have already successfully sued numerous car manufacturers because their cars didn't run a number which was within .0999 of the stated spec.
I can see it now.: "Your honor, they said this car would run 10.9 seconds. But it actually ran 0.09 seconds slower than that. I ran a 10.99 in it. In fact that's the lowest time I've ever seen or heard of having been run in it. I want my money back from these liars for that 0.09 seconds."
"It's not my fault either your honor, and no outside variables could be the reason why it ran 0.09 seconds slower than they said it would. In fact, someone else at the same track I was on, ran .099 seconds slower than they advertised and ended up with a 10.999 as opposed to the 10.9 they said. They simply lied and I demand justice your honor. I want my money back."
Several auto manufacturers would have already been successfully sued over people missing a published spec by 0.09 seconds.
I have to say that I can't help but wonder why you're seemingly so fearful now that only .1517 seconds are left to overcome before the car breaks 11 seconds in the quarter and makes it into the 10.9s.
It's the strangest thing.. It's like some of you don't even want to see the car run a 10.9 anything unless it's a 10.9000.
Last edited:
To this comment, I responded earlier:
"Well since the discussion centers around results obtained on a drag strip, and these results are the determining factor in here as to if the car is on the mark or not, I thought that was self explanatory.
10.9999 is considered to be the highest of the 10.9s before you run into the 11s."
And if an 11.00 is dialed in, well then anything below that, yes, even a 10.9999 is considered breaking out.
I think that I should also add that since we are looking at numbers obtained on a drag strip to determine how far off the mark the car is, that I was using custom, protocol, convention, and parlance, typically used in describing results obtained there.
Last edited:
I'll do that test... from a roll no launch, just to show the power difference, have to get some big friends in the S..... I might even bring both cars to the dyno if I have time...
from a roll the X and S are crazy close....
from a roll the X and S are crazy close....
Last night I watched 3 hours of Elons meeting with the stockholders. It was refreshing and informative in his honesty and humility in discussing the origins of Tesla especially the problems with the Roadster and near bankruptcy. That was the Elon we all love. He even stated the supercharging will not be free for the Model 3.
How many did they lose from all of the horsepower hubbub in here?
Doesn't seem like that hurt them on Model 3 reservations.
I don't think that a few people in here, not knowing that two cars, one running 10.900 and the other running 10.999 seconds are still both referred to as 10.9 second cars, or even that both are referred to as 10 second cars, is going to hurt them.
Last edited:
I'm flabbergasted.
So is the car below an 8 second car to you, or not?
http://jalopnik.com/5942214/watch-t...gal-gtr-run-an-insane-897-second-quarter-mile
How about this one?
18-Year-Old Hits 8 Second Quarter Mile in Turbo '68 Camaro
Last edited:
I doubt that.
And just how does one "ran in the tens" without running "at least" as quick as 10.999???
Hold on.......Even though it ran "slower than 8.946?
Here is what you said earlier:
How come you didn't just round up that 8.97 that the GT-R ran in the link to a 9 and call it a 9 second car instead of the 8 second car you just called it?????
And since you are saying that it is an 8 second car, well then is it not "at least" an 8.9 second car too?
Take a look at the second link of the Camaro running the 8.999 as well. Based on what you just said about the 8.97 car, being an 8 second car, one would have to believe that you would consider the 8.99 second Camaro as being an 8 second car as well.
But I really want to hear your answer to that.
If so, well then tell us how you can call the Camaro an 8 second car, without it first being as quick as 8.999 seconds.
I'm thinking that it's you who can't.
On the one hand you go on about 10.946, and how you don't call a car running over 10.946 a 10.9 second car, but say that "needs to be rounded up to 11 seconds", and thus making it an 11 second car.
Then you turn right back around and call a car running 8.97 seconds an 8 second car.
I don't think that you grasp that when you refer to that GT-R as an "8 second car", then you're actually giving it more accolades and lauding it even more than were you to call it an "8.9 second car."
And calling it an 8.9 second car, is something which you would apparently be loathe to do, since it ran 8.97 seconds as opposed to 8.946 seconds, and the 8.97 should be rounded up to 9.
One more time, on the drag strip, 10.9 anything makes it a 10.9 second car. And one can go a step further than that, .....as you already did in the example of the 8.97 second GT-R. If it runs 10.999, ......or for sure 10.97, well then it can be called a 10 second car.
There is no arguing with that.....and should anyone decide to, anyone wants to talk about "rounding up, well then I intend to point them right to your remarks about the 8.97 second car being an 8 second car.
When/if the P90D Ludicrous manages to put up a quarter mile time which is just .1517 seconds better than the current best, well then it will become a 10 second car, according to your logic, which I agree with, I might add. And a 10.9 second car.
As an aside, did you know that the NHRA and the IHRA require safety parameters for certain cars running quicker than 10.999.
They certainly consider 10.99 as having crossed the line from 11s.
Last edited:
I said 10.949 not 10.946. Yes I know the rules. That is why I have to wear a Snell 2005 or later helmet and a jacket at one track. Any 8 second time and we can call it a 8 second car. My only point is when you report a 10.9 that is what you should be running. If a Tesla does 10.999 we can call it a 10 second car but it did not do 10.9.
Except the MT tesla....
Forgive me for observing that the semantic discussion about what we can call a 10 or 11 second car and when it's appropriate to use those descriptions isn't very interesting.
What would be a lot more interesting is discovering how did Motor Trend report a 10.9 whatever second car? Was it due to:
1. Actually slower and perhaps improperly "corrected /adjusted" for altitude and temperature, etc. ? Or
2. A ringer car with some software or hardware that isn't widely released yet? , or
3. Some combination of minimal options resulting in lighter weight and a lucky day at the track.?
Only #3 gives us hope that it can be replicated.
Also don't forget the c&d test reporting 0-to-60-mph in 2.8 seconds. 30-to-50-mph in 1.3 and 1/4 in 11.1-second @121-mph. I think this shows that a minimal option can do 11.1 and maybe MT just over corrected explaining the .2 better than c+d with the same car.
Forgive me for observing that the semantic discussion about what we can call a 10 or 11 second car and when it's appropriate to use those descriptions isn't very interesting.
What would be a lot more interesting is discovering how did Motor Trend report a 10.9 whatever second car? Was it due to:
1. Actually slower and perhaps improperly "corrected /adjusted" for altitude and temperature, etc. ? Or
2. A ringer car with some software or hardware that isn't widely released yet? , or
3. Some combination of minimal options resulting in lighter weight and a lucky day at the track.?
Only #3 gives us hope that it can be replicated.
Also don't forget the c&d test reporting 0-to-60-mph in 2.8 seconds. 30-to-50-mph in 1.3 and 1/4 in 11.1-second @121-mph. I think this shows that a minimal option can do 11.1 and maybe MT just over corrected explaining the .2 better than c+d with the same car.
Last edited:
You're did.
But for the sake of argument, it would have made no difference either way.
The car you say is an 8 second car, didn't run 8.49 either.
Let me make sure I follow.
About your part in bold......if a Tesla does 10.....oh, what was that again.... 10 what 99, it did not so 10.9??????
Oh, I'm looking at it again, here we go....
You said 10 9.......99.
Interesting that you said "10.9", before saying that "99".
If it runs 10.999 and we point to it and say that's a 10 second car, well then we're heaping more accolades on it than were we to call it a 10.9 second car.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
