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

[NSX1992]

@P85DEE
I checked the shop Ludicrous upgrade for the p90D before I made my comment and there is no 10.9 claim anymore. You must take your P85DL to the strip. I would not worry about any damage to your air suspension by tying it down on a trailer. Or isn't there somewhere you could get a slow charge if you drove?

I am planning to race Saturday AT Famoso 1/4 mile strip near Bakersfield, CA 150 miles away. The problem is the nearest Supercharger is Tejon Ranch 50 miles from the strip. I could slow charge somewhere in Bakersfield 20 miles from the strip. I thought about hauling my Tesla (Heartbeat) in my 24' 102" wide enclosed trailer but I could not get out of it once inside. Tried Summons on my neighbors steeper driveway but the Tesla would not move. Since the races are from 8 pm to 2 am it would have been nice to sleep overnight before heading home.

 

[P85DEE]

@P85DEE
I checked the shop Ludicrous upgrade for the p90D before I made my comment and there is no 10.9 claim anymore. You must take your P85DL to the strip. I would not worry about any damage to your air suspension by tying it down on a trailer. Or isn't there somewhere you could get a slow charge if you drove?

I am planning to race Saturday AT Famoso 1/4 mile strip near Bakersfield, CA 150 miles away. The problem is the nearest Supercharger is Tejon Ranch 50 miles from the strip. I could slow charge somewhere in Bakersfield 20 miles from the strip. I thought about hauling my Tesla (Heartbeat) in my 24' 102" wide enclosed trailer but I could not get out of it once inside. Tried Summons on my neighbors steeper driveway but the Tesla would not move. Since the races are from 8 pm to 2 am it would have been nice to sleep overnight before heading home.

Yes, you're right. I don't see 10.9 mentioned in the P90D Ludicrous update for existing P90Ds now.

I wonder what they wil do for the customers who bought it when that was in the description, if any bought it during that time.

Curious that they delete that, as in the P90D it's just a software update to take it Ludicrous.

Wait a second, I think I know what may have happend.

In the write up they say;

"The LUDICROUS mode upgrade is available for all P90D vehicles.. These vehicles will receive updated badging to P90D where the underline denotes the LUDICROUS upgrade."

That would include the Model X P90D. Which they didn't advertise with the 10.9 spec.

However if you take a look, the Ludicrous upgrade is also advertised over in the Model X shopping section too and there they do state a quarter mile time. Where it says:

"Upgrade the level of performance in your existing P90D from “INSANE” to “LUDICROUS”! This upgrade adds high-capacity electronics to unlock more power and acceleration, enabling your Model X to go from 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds and deliver a quarter mile time of 11.7 seconds. *Model S P90D acceleration ratings follow Motor Trend's test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance.

The LUDICROUS mode upgrade is available for all P90D vehicles. These vehicles will receive updated badging to P90D where the underline denotes the LUDICROUS upgrade".

I don't know who's writing this stuff for them, but they need to do a better job. And you're right that they make no mention of the 10.9 spec in the Ludicrous upgrade offering for the Model S.

 

[NSX1992]

I will give you some information to analyze. Tesla claims 11.7 for the Model X and 10.9 for the Model S. The famous husband and wife video at Drag Times had the first time wife racer in the XP90DL do 11.610 (time slips submitted show 11.666) while the experienced husband in his SP90DL best was 11.317 (his all time best is 11.2xx). You can't get a better side by side comparison.

The point is a woman in her first race beat Teslas advertised time of 11.7 while the experienced husband was .4 slower than Teslas 10.9. He even mentions hoping for some sort of upgrade to get 10.9. It is nice to have a private Model X beat Teslas claim. It is not nice for everyone else who are trying to obtain the unattainable 10.9.

 

[vip gts]

So why would they take down the 10.9?
The firmware required is harmful to the battery?

 

[gsxdsm]

So why would they take down the 10.9?
The firmware required is harmful to the battery?

The 10.9 is still on the Design Center ludicrous option.

 

[P85DEE]

I will give you some information to analyze. Tesla claims 11.7 for the Model X and 10.9 for the Model S. The famous husband and wife video at Drag Times had the first time wife racer in the XP90DL do 11.610 (time slips submitted show 11.666) while the experienced husband in his SP90DL best was 11.317 (his all time best is 11.2xx). You can't get a better side by side comparison.

The point is a woman in her first race beat Teslas advertised time of 11.7 while the experienced husband was .4 slower than Teslas 10.9. He even mentions hoping for some sort of upgrade to get 10.9. It is nice to have a private Model X beat Teslas claim. It is not nice for everyone else who are trying to obtain the unattainable 10.9.

I think I know the direction you're headed with your question.

But I'd ask; "just because the spec can be easily hit in one model which, btw, is a slower model, how should that necessarily mean that it should be easy to hit across the entire model lineup?"

As an aside, a woman is said to have run 11.2 in a Model S P90D Ludicrous as well. And a man on this forum has run 11.2 his first time out. And another gentleman incedentally named George, has run a pair of 11.2s his first time out.

And then there is the gentleman who ran the 11.1 which left him just .1517 seconds off the 10.9 claim.

But to your point.

I think that in the case of Model S, it will take a car which is a minimally optioned example to make the 10.9.

The above examples were generously optioned. Sunroofs etc.

It would be interesting to see what someone produces in a bare bones, no sunroof, no other options specimen.

Now, if it cannot be matched in a bare bones model, by anyone at all, well then the spec cannot be anything other than false.

But I need to see some more examples, and preferably in minimally optioned cars before I can say that now.

But again I'd ask you, just because the spec is "easy" to hit in one model, how should that necessarily mean that it should be easy to hit in the other one?

 

[bhzmark]

Did Tesla promote the 10.9 before MT reported it?

Once MT reported 10.9 (and assuming it wasn't a ringer but only a minimally optioned car and one which the speed gods looked upon favorably that day) should Tesla then promote some slower number?

 

[P85DEE]

Did Tesla promote the 10.9 before MT reported it?

Once MT reported 10.9 (and assuming it wasn't a ringer but only a minimally optioned car and one which the speed gods looked upon favorably that day) should Tesla then promote some slower number?

Elon said 10.9 way back 7/17/15 at the Three Dog Day.
Three Dog Day

He never said anything about "trap speeds".

MT then went out and backed up his 10.9 claim, but on their own, included their speed hit when they ran their 10.9.

It is unknown what, if any, correction factors were used, or if they got a "ringer", though speculation abounds that one or the other happened.

However when a guy goes out and runs 11.1 in an optioned model, and multiple 11.2s show up, it's become more difficult for me to say that: "Elon was lying. He was telling a bold face lie when he stood up there and said 10.9. And the car Tesla supplied to MT, it had to have been a ringer in order to maintain the ruse, so they were duped too. Either that or they used correction factors or had a tail wind and are unwittingly in on that lie themselves."

And that's exactly what anyone who takes that position is saying.

In other words he duped us, and then he duped Motor Trend. Or Motor Trend is in on it with him either knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm not ready to call Elon a liar just yet.

There's no two ways about it. You have to be calling his claim a lie if you're saying that this car can't hit 10.9 at all.

 

[fiksegts]

I will be at Palm Beach International Raceway this Friday running my S P90DL vs a P85DL....

 

[P85DEE]

I will be at Palm Beach International Raceway this Friday running my S P90DL vs a P85DL....

I saw the guy on Youtube say that this was coming up, but I didn't know when.

But it's great to hear that in about 48hrs, we'll know how the two stack up against one another. I appreciate the both of you conducting this comparison.

On a side note, I recall your very first reports with your own P90D Ludicrous as being around 11.4, then 11.3 and finally down to a pair of 11.2s on the strip, and one 11.2 via vbox.

I also recall that there was some question from one of our members about your aftermarket wheels offering an advantage, which you clearly explained offered no weight savings advantage over stock, and I'm among those who do not look at your wheels as a factor in your results for the reasons you explained.

But out of curiosity, what is your take as to whether or not a minimally optioned, lightest possible available stock weight Model S P90DL will ever break 11 seconds, bearing in mind that it has to reach "but" 10.999 in order to do so?

 

[fiksegts]

Just have to hope for the weather to hold, I drove up there last Friday to run the Huracan and got rained out. They are also having issues with the timing boards and canceled this weekends event, but I think test and tune is still on.

The wheels are a couple pounds lighter per wheel, but before/after testing with the VBOX didn't show a performance gain. On this heavy of a car it just doesn't make a difference.

Without more power, the car won't go 10.99, clearly many have tried and it's just not there. The most recent 11.15 is interesting as it did launch harder, 1.59 60', of course Tesla could be slipping in things in the software releases and not saying anything. I haven't run my car in a while so we'll see if I can go below a 1.6 as well.

I don't think the pano roof is 150 pounds, I personally talked to someone who removed it from a car and it was in the 60 pound area.

I feel like the power is there, just not allowed yet by Tesla yet, the Model X clearly is making more power than the S. Either way it's annoying, Tesla says the X does 11.7 and we ran 11.6 easily, at least 8 times, Tesla says the S runs 10.9 and we run 11.2-11.3, it's a big difference.

I saw the guy on Youtube say that this was coming up, but I didn't know when.

But it's great to hear that in about 48hrs, we'll know how the two stack up against one another. I appreciate the both of you conducting this comparison.

On a side note, I recall your very first reports with your own P90D Ludicrous as being around 11.4, then 11.3 and finally down to a pair of 11.2s on the strip, and one 11.2 via vbox.

I also recall that there was some question from one of our members about your aftermarket wheels offering an advantage, which you clearly explained offered no weight savings advantage over stock, and I'm among those who do not look at your wheels as a factor in your results for the reasons you explained.

But out of curiosity, what is your take as to whether or not a minimally optioned, lightest possible available stock weight Model S P90DL will ever break 11 seconds, bearing in mind that it has to reach "but" 10.999 in order to do so?

 

[bhzmark]

I don't think the pano roof is 150 pounds, I personally talked to someone who removed it from a car and it was in the 60 pound area.

In another thread someone reports weighing two model Ss -- one with and one w/o pano and the difference was 125 pounds.

 

[P85DEE]

In another thread someone reports weighing two model Ss -- one with and one w/o pano and the difference was 125 pounds.

I got the 150lb figure from here.

Tesla Model S Weight Distribution

I wonder if the 60lb figure was just the glass or if it included any additional sunroof hardware.

 

[P85DEE]

Just have to hope for the weather to hold, I drove up there last Friday to run the Huracan and got rained out. They are also having issues with the timing boards and canceled this weekends event, but I think test and tune is still on.

The wheels are a couple pounds lighter per wheel, but before/after testing with the VBOX didn't show a performance gain. On this heavy of a car it just doesn't make a difference.

Without more power, the car won't go 10.99, clearly many have tried and it's just not there. The most recent 11.15 is interesting as it did launch harder, 1.59 60', of course Tesla could be slipping in things in the software releases and not saying anything. I haven't run my car in a while so we'll see if I can go below a 1.6 as well.

I don't think the pano roof is 150 pounds, I personally talked to someone who removed it from a car and it was in the 60 pound area.

I feel like the power is there, just not allowed yet by Tesla yet, the Model X clearly is making more power than the S. Either way it's annoying, Tesla says the X does 11.7 and we ran 11.6 easily, at least 8 times, Tesla says the S runs 10.9 and we run 11.2-11.3, it's a big difference.

Out of all the explanations I've seen out there, yours is the most feasible.

A question arises though as to when the 11.1 was run. The slip says 12/15, the submission is not until May 2016. However it wouldn't be the first time that a track misdated a time slip.

If he got that 1.59 back then, i.e. 12/15, then it was during a time when we were seeing no better than 1.6xx from the others.

The whole matter is a mystery to this point, and hopefully the reported times will continue to improve.

 

[NSX1992]

The 150 pound pano roof by Tesla Model S Weight Distribution is clearly only an estimate as they state that is based on similar luxury vehicles.

I have not noticed any unknown power upgrades based on my numerous trips to the drags.

I am glad that P85DEE maybe will listen at least to figsegts that more power is required to do 10.9.

Yes I think that all of Teslas claims for all vehicles should be attainable.

@figsegts
You should try slip start. You may be surprised. I was. By the way I follow all your posts and videos. Keep it up.

My P85DL has the pano roof with nothing else to make it heavier.

 

[brianman]

The gentleman who made it, was just .1517 seconds away from the highest possible 10.9.

Enough with the creative language and omissions.

List both numbers as strings please.

"10.9" vs "11.1517" (or whatever)

If you'd like to call that "a unicorn hair difference" fine. But use the numbers not creative language to fuzzy the math. You remind me of the NREV (not really EV) FUDsters.

 

[P85DEE]

Enough with the creative language and omissions.

List both numbers as strings please.

"10.9" vs "11.1517" (or whatever)

If you'd like to call that "a unicorn hair difference" fine. But use the numbers not creative language to fuzzy the math. You remind me of the NREV (not really EV) FUDsters.

What's the difference? 11.1516 seconds is .1517 seconds more than 10.9999, which is the mark to be reached.

There is no "fuzziying the math. You don't believe me, then subtract it out.

The numbers are what they are and anywhere in the 10.9s, be it 10.9000- 10.9999 is a 10.9 quarter mile time.

And no, I'm not calling it a unicorn hairs worth of difference. It is what is is.

And what "omissions"?

Also exactly just what "fear uncertainty and doubt" are you referring to with reference to me?

It seems that some of us are "fearful" that .1517 seconds deficit is going to eventually be cut into, and we won't be able to continue with insinuations of lies having been told and ringers and other conspiracy theories.

But that's about the only "fear" I see in here.

No, the fact remains, the best time seen yet, is just .1517 seconds off the mark. Whether or not some of us want to accept that.

 

[brianman]

(1) What's the difference? (2) ... 10.9999, which is the mark to be reached.

(1) You know exactly what the difference is -- which is why keep using language to play with the numbers. Just list the numbers without caveats or creative adjectives. If your argument is strong and correct, you don't need sleight of hand.
(2) No. In your opinion it is. In my opinion it's not. Neither of our opinions are immediately fact.

No, the fact remains, the best time seen yet, is just .1517 seconds off the mark. Whether or not some of us want to accept that.

Incorrect.

The fact remains, the best time seen yet, is just "11.1516" vs. the advertised "10.9". Subtracting those two numbers using "normal math" yields "0.2517" not "0.1517".

Correct.

the advertised "10.9" is the same as a real world, scientifically repeatable "10.999"

This seems to be what P85DEE thinks, but many of us disagree.

And what "omissions"?

You've omitted your definition of what "highest possible 10.9" means. It's a standard obfuscation tactic.

You seem to think it means "10.999". In reality, the "highest possible 10.9" is "10.9". Not "10.99". Not "10.999". Not "10.9repeating" -- which is the same as 11.

Simply "10.9" because "10.9" has a range of [10.9, 10.9]. The highest and lowest possible values of "10.9" are both "10.9".


Maybe math has changed since I went to school, but it can't have changed as much as you're implying. Jiminy Cricket!

 

[commasign]

The easy way to settle this is to have an S P90DL loaded with 600 lbs of cargo race against an X P90DL. With similar weights, the only remaining difference should be aerodynamics and firmware. Based on aerodynamics, the S should win every time. If the S (with 600 lbs cargo) quarter mile times start to crawl into the high 11's (11.8, 11.9 Etc) then we will know that Tesla is holding back performance on the S and maybe there is a magical "MotorTrend 10.9 second firmware" that hasn't been released to the public. On the other hand, if the S with 600 lbs still beats the X, then it's less likely Tesla is holding anything back on the S relative to the X.

 

[P85DEE]

(1) You know exactly what the difference is -- which is why keep using language to play with the numbers. Just list the numbers without caveats or creative adjectives. If your argument is strong and correct, you don't need sleight of hand.
(2) No. In your opinion it is. In my opinion it's not. Neither of our opinions are immediately fact.

There is no playing with the numbers. They speak for themselves.

If you're saying that 10.9999 isn't In the 10.9s well then where is it?

But here's the real test.

Two people both bought cars advertised to run a 10.9 second quarter mile.

One guy runs 10.9400 the other runs 10.9999.

It seems to be your position that the guy running the 10.9999 has a legitimate complaint.

And could take Tesla to court and win, after his P90D Ludicrous car ran a 10.9999 or even multiple 10.999s, and argue false advertising.

Yeah, right.