0-60/30-50/50-70 comparative times for 70D/85D/P85D

[e-FTW]

Happy to take a shot at putting down numbers in my RWD S70, now running 7.0, if someone has the necessary hardware available. We should ideally have cars that have not updated to 7.0, time them, then have them updated to 7.0 and do it again...

 

[Ronist]

Does V7 upgrade only gives driver a perceived improvement? Otherwise I wonder why Tesla didn't update the numbers on the website.

 

[e-FTW]

Maybe the improvements are negligible at legal road speeds?

 

[Thud]

Maybe the improvements are negligible at legal road speeds?

There's absolutely no discernible improvement below 60mph on a RWD car.

Here are two runs in the same car (mine), same stretch of road, with the same cargo load. 5-60mph to eliminate any differences in the launch.

Maybe it's got more acceleration above 60mph and beyond? Who knows.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Nobody has a Vbox and an 85D, to measure a roll-out time?

 

[xborg]

Nobody has a Vbox and an 85D, to measure a roll-out time?

yeah, would be nice to have more examples of 85D. It's great if that 3.86 is reproducible.

 

[benf]

Nobody has a Vbox and an 85D, to measure a roll-out time?

I have a VBox and will have my 85D in a few weeks. If no one posts anything by then, I will

 

[supratachophobia]

Why is the chart not completed by now?

- - - Updated - - -

I have a VBox and will have my 85D in a few weeks. If no one posts anything by then, I will

I'd be super interested in your real-world numbers. Especially considering the VBOX is supposed to be fairly accurate right?

 

[e-FTW]

Have a RWD 70. Will happily hook up someone's VBOX to it and then blast down the track with it. Have nothing planned starting Wednesday. Who's with me?

 

[benf]

I'd be super interested in your real-world numbers. Especially considering the VBOX is supposed to be fairly accurate right?

Yeah, it's one of the most accurate affordable solutions out there. A lot of magazines use it for their testing. It should be accurate to within less than 0.05 seconds for 0-60 times.

 

[chickensevil]

BTW, here is a breakdown of actual times from 0-60 (not with 1ft rollout).

I feel like there is room for improvement. If you notice 0-30 is less than half the time, but 30-60 is where the power is dumped. Also, in a previous run I reached 60 in 144ft, so I don't know why it took 10 extra feet this time even though this is the fastest 0-60 (no 1ft) I've gotten yet. Maybe measurements were flawed the previous time.

Speed (mph)	Time (seconds)	Distance (ft)
0	0	0
10	0.34	3.05
20	0.80	13.02
30	1.25	29.65
40	1.73	54.17
50	2.32	93.68
60	3.06	153.48

Just in case someone was interested time differences between each segment:
0-10: .34
10-20: .46
20-30: .45
30-40: .48
40-50: .59
50-60: .74

So looks to me like the real dump doesn't start until into the 40s. Would love to have this data for each car from 0-100 then you could just make your own chart stats, lol. Why people pull weird segments like 50-70 is beyond me. If you want more than 0-60 and 0-100 (and maybe 60-100?), then we should just do everyone a favor and give every 10MPH interval.

There's absolutely no discernible improvement below 60mph on a RWD car.

Here are two runs in the same car (mine), same stretch of road, with the same cargo load. 5-60mph to eliminate any differences in the launch.

Maybe it's got more acceleration above 60mph and beyond? Who knows.

I don't know if it is a lag in the video frames, or possibly how you matched it up, but it looks like from the beginning of the video to by the time it reaches the end there is at least a whole MPH difference between the two clips that doesn't seem to exist at the start. Although there is also some screen lag happening which makes it hard to tell, but you can clearly see the car showing 50 on one dash while showing a transition from 48-49 on the other dash.

Although this very minor difference could be explained by a number of other factors other than the software update. (external temp, level of charge, battery temp, wind, etc).

Edit: I take it back, I think this is just screen lag and nothing more as you can catch a single frame showing an even transition between the two cars from 51-52 MPH and the start of the video is an even transition from 4MPH to 5MPH.

 

[benf]

As promised, here are the numbers for my brand new, completely stock 85D with 19" wheels from the vbox (with 1 foot roll-out). SoC: ~88%, Outside temp: ~60F, and tires had ~200 miles on them. Climate control was also on (oops).

0-60 MPH: 4.04 sec
0-100 MPH: 10.46 sec
1/4 Mile: 12.66 sec @ 108.1 MPH

Speed	Time	Time Delta	Distance	Acceleration
10 MPH	0.48 sec	0.48 sec	4.68 ft	0.63 g
20 MPH	1.13 sec	0.66 sec	18.62 ft	0.90 g
30 MPH	1.66 sec	0.52 sec	37.94 ft	0.81 g
40 MPH	2.32 sec	0.67 sec	72.20 ft	0.61 g
50 MPH	3.05 sec	0.73 sec	120.34 ft	0.58 g
60 MPH	4.04 sec	0.99 sec	200.19 ft	0.43 g
70 MPH	5.19 sec	1.16 sec	310.84 ft	0.31 g
80 MPH	6.52 sec	1.33 sec	457.56 ft	0.29 g
90 MPH	8.20 sec	1.67 sec	666.82 ft	0.16 g
100 MPH	10.46 sec	2.26 sec	983.44 ft	0.19 g

Some things worth noting:

It seems like even though I didn't detect any wheel spin or traction control, there was clearly something going on because the acceleration (g's) at 10 MPH were LOWER than at 20 MPH. Since the motor makes max torque at 0 RPM, if traction control didn't interfere, you would expect the highest G's from 0-10 MPH. Also, the car accelerated from 20-30 MPH faster than it did from 10-20 MPH. Again, guessing traction control is to blame.

You also can't compare the 0-10 MPH delta time to the other delta's because of the 1 foot roll-out. 0-10 MPH is really more like 3-10 MPH, because the car hits 3 MPH in the first foot. If you actually did an apples to apples comparison of 0-10 MPH and 10-20 MPH, the time to do 0-10 MPH was actually longer than 10-20 MPH, which shouldn't be the case.

Soon I'll be putting on 20x9 TSW Nurburgring wheels and Continental Extreme Contact DW tires. It will be interesting to see if the improved grip from better tires or the decreased rotating/unsprung weight of the wheels makes any difference. If my theory about the traction control is true, I'd expect a tenth or two improvement 0-60 if the car doesn't have to hold back the power from 0-20 MPH.

Edit:

After graphing some things, I think the traction control issue is pretty obvious. Just look at about 0.6 seconds in, or around 13mph. The drop in G's is significant.

 

[bhzmark]

Wow thats good. The marginal improvement with a P hardly seems worth it. Especially now with no suspension difference.

 

[mscott]

@benf, nice numbers, and pretty close to my own experience at the drag strip. Three questions that would help put these results in context:

1 what was your SOC? (These numbers look like mine at about 90% SOC.)
2 what was the approximate outside temperatur? That will affect both the traction of the tires as well as power output of the battery.)
3 how many miles on the tires? You suggest brand new, and new tires might explain your slower 0-10 time. Brand new tires didn't grip as well as ones that have at least 1000 miles on them.

 

[benf]

@benf, nice numbers, and pretty close to my own experience at the drag strip. Three questions that would help put these results in context:

1 what was your SOC? (These numbers look like mine at about 90% SOC.)
2 what was the approximate outside temperatur? That will affect both the traction of the tires as well as power output of the battery.)
3 how many miles on the tires? You suggest brand new, and new tires might explain your slower 0-10 time. Brand new tires didn't grip as well as ones that have at least 1000 miles on them.

1) ~88% SoC
2) ~60 degrees F
3) ~200 miles

I'm guessing with slightly more miles on the tires and/or better tires, we'll see 3.9 or 3.8 0-60. I'll keep testing when possible .

- - - Updated - - -

Wow thats good. The marginal improvement with a P hardly seems worth it. Especially now with no suspension difference.

I'll certainly agree than the 85D, relative to the 70D and P85D, is an excellent bang for your buck in terms of range/performance per dollar. However, I wouldn't say a full second 0-60 is a marginal improvement . Seeing these numbers (which hopefully will be in the high 3's soon) makes me feel a little better about my decision not to get the P, which I seriously struggled with.

 

[benf]

Also worth noting: I didn't realize having the climate control on would affect performance. I wasn't really thinking. I also probably didn't "mash" the accelerator pedal fast enough, as this was my very first time doing this test. We'll see with the same wheel/tire setup if I can pull another tenth of the car by doing things properly today.

After graphing some things from last night, I think the traction control issue is pretty obvious. Just look at about 0.6 seconds in, or around 13mph. The drop in G's is significant.

 

[mscott]

Also worth noting: I didn't realize having the climate control on would affect performance. I wasn't really thinking.

In my experience at the track, turning off the climate control (and/or headlights) doesn't make a bit of difference. Neither does setting the suspension to low, or folding in the mirrors. (If any of these things help at all, their effect is completely swamped by a SOC drop of even 2-3%.)

I also probably didn't "mash" the accelerator pedal fast enough, as this was my very first time doing this test.

Now this could be an issue. I've found the speed at which you get the accelerator pedal to the floor definitely does make a difference. Unlike in an ICE, the "fuel" starts moving to the motor at essentially the speed of light and the entire drivetrain gets moving at least 2 orders of magnitude faster than an ICEV. It can easily take more than 1/10th of a second to get the accelerator to the floor if you're mash it like you might in an ICEV. You need to literally cock your leg back and kick the pedal (and hold on! :biggrin.

We'll see with the same wheel/tire setup if I can pull another tenth of the car by doing things properly today.

I think your tires are still a somewhat limiting factor here. And just for kicks, you should do a run with "Slip Start" turned on. That would give some indication if traction control is part of the problem, as that disables it.

After graphing some things from last night, I think the traction control issue is pretty obvious. Just look at about 0.6 seconds in, or around 13mph. The drop in G's is significant.

To me that just looks like noise in the signal. I highly doubt the car slowed its acceleration that much only to resume it 1/10th of a second later. Personally, I wouldn't get hung up on that.

 

[mscott]

To me that just looks like noise in the signal. I highly doubt the car slowed its acceleration that much only to resume it 1/10th of a second later. Personally, I wouldn't get hung up on that.

But I've been known to be wrong before. :wink:

 

[kennybobby]

It looks real since it's not just one data point, but actually 3 points that are lower over 300 msec before it is back up to the acceleration slope.

Maybe you could compare a run without using the 1ft rollout on the vbox. With the 1ft rollout box checked you lose that initial start data. It can always be subtracted out later.

 

[dhanson865]

Originally Posted by benf

I also probably didn't "mash" the accelerator pedal fast enough, as this was my very first time doing this test.

Now this could be an issue. I've found the speed at which you get the accelerator pedal to the floor definitely does make a difference. Unlike in an ICE, the "fuel" starts moving to the motor at essentially the speed of light and the entire drivetrain gets moving at least 2 orders of magnitude faster than an ICEV. It can easily take more than 1/10th of a second to get the accelerator to the floor if you're mash it like you might in an ICEV. You need to literally cock your leg back and kick the pedal (and hold on! :biggrin.

The new launch control sequence should fix that.

New Launch Mode - firmware 2.9.40

allows you to have your foot fully down on the accel when you let up the brake and guarantees a max launch energy wise.