Acceleration/Rollout measurement

[MartinAustin]

Model 3 with 353 mi range, black trim, all model 3s now come with power trunk lift gate. Damn we gonna sell buku cars! Let’s go Tesla!

It also looks like a couple of acceleration figures got beefed up.

Model 3 LR AWD is now just as fast as my 2013 Model S P85! (and has a higher top speed!)

I wonder if there has been a range bump for the $35,000 Standard Range Model 3 that you can supposedly still order.

 

[Knightshade]

It also looks like a couple of acceleration figures got beefed up.

Model 3 LR AWD is now just as fast as my 2013 Model S P85! (and has a higher top speed!)

It's faster. And always was.

Tesla lies when they post P vs non-P times... (in the P85 days they even explicitly pointed out they did so- I guess before they fired the PR guys one of them said to leave it out on future pages)

They use 1 foot rollout for P, and don't use it for non-P, to make the gap look bigger than it really is.

The LR AWD Model 3 has been doing 0-60 in 3.9 if you measure it the same way they measure the P ever since the last free 5% power bump. (and this has been confirmed by professional car magazine testing in addition to a ton of data on draggy and owners here)

It does 3.5 if you add the $2000 accel boost.

The LR AWD+ Model 3 is the quickest car you can buy under 50k AFAIK.

 

[StealthP3D]

It's faster. And always was.

Tesla lies when they post P vs non-P times... (in the P85 days they even explicitly pointed out they did so- I guess before they fired the PR guys one of them said to leave it out on future pages)

They use 1 foot rollout for P, and don't use it for non-P, to make the gap look bigger than it really is.

The industry standard is to use a one-second roll-out when quoting 0-60 times. In effect, Tesla is under-reporting just how fast the regular AWD is! Yes, it makes it look worse than it is when compared to the Performance.

On the other hand, from a subjective perspective, the difference between the two is greater than the few tenths of a second might suggest to the typical consumer. So, in that respect, they are giving most people a slightly more accurate perception of the actual differences between the two.

And since a Tesla is more likely to be faster than the actual stated specs, it's all good in my book.

 

[Knightshade]

The industry standard is to use a one-second roll-out when quoting 0-60 times

The US standard is.

The European standard is to NOT do that.

(it's why German cars usually "outperform" their MFG numbers noticeably when US car mags, which use the US standard, test them).

But that said- in both places- Industry standard is to use the same measuring stick for all your models.

Dodge and Ford and GM report everything they sell with 1 foot rollout

BMW reports everything they sell without it.

It lets you compare different trims of a car apples to apples.

Tesla is the only company that does not do that and uses different measurements for different trims- and they don't even clearly indicate it on the website with an * like they used to back in the P85 days.

It's dishonest and there's really no other way to put it.

 

[GregRF]

The industry standard is to use a one-second roll-out when quoting 0-60 times.

*one foot roll-out

 

[Pezpunk]

*one foot roll-out

haha yes important distinction! nobody uses a one-second rollout.

 

[Knightshade]

No. If they over reported capabilities it would be dishonest. Under reporting something like an acceleration factor is not dishonesty.

You don't appear to understand what they're actually doing.

If they used the SAME measurement for all cars, and it was the less aggressive one, you'd be right.

They're reporting Non-P numbers using one measurement method.

And they're reporting P numbers using a different measurement method.

(and they no longer even clearly tell you they're doing that- they used to on the S a few years back but they removed the disclaimer there too)

That's absolutely 100% dishonest, and something nobody else in the car industry does.

 

[ZeApelido]

*one foot roll-out

*one Bigfoot roll-out

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Of course it's dishonest.

They're presenting a specific named measurement, same named measurement in fact, on each trim of the vehicle- suggesting you could compare the two on this measurement.

But then using a different method to measure it on one than the other- resulting in 2 measurements you can't compare fairly to each other because they're not measured the same way and explicitly and intentionally produce significantly different results from each other.

And not mentioning it's not actually measured the same way on both.

It'd be like an ICE company listing "MPG" on one trim of a car at 25 and on a more expensive trim as 30, but leaving out one is city and one is highway, and if you actually measured em the SAME way the difference would be significantly smaller than their posted #s suggest. Nobody'd consider that "honest"

Same thing here.

(and the fact they used to at least MENTION in tiny print at the bottom they were using different measurements, and then removed that disclaimer, underscores how intentionally deceptive this is on their part)

I'd just like to point out that I found evidence several years ago that GM was in fact advertising their performance models differently:

Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

Post #283

The gist is that they appeared to advertise the Camaro ZL1 with 1 foot roll-out, but not the SS, to better differentiate the performance of the ZL1.

 

[Knightshade]

This got me wondering; are they still doing that? Is there some reliable source?
Or did they change and measure every car the same way, hence disclaimer removal?
(just wondering, I'm not making any claims here)

We know they're still doing it based on calibrated measured 0-60 times from both numerous owners, and numerous car magazines, that all roughly match each other.... and all of those measurements using 1 foot rollout are all within about 0.1 seconds correct for the P listed times.... but all much further off for the non-P versions of the same car (even when measured by the same person with the same measuring device.


What's more- we SAW Tesla do it.

When the 3 AWD and P first launched- they were NOT doing this (despite having already done it on the S for years).

At launch, they listed the P at 3.5, and the AWD at 4.5

Both which which were roughly correct for NON rollout times.


Then a few months later the P magically changed to 3.3, despite no updates that changed power output at all. While the AWD stayed at 4.5

That was them noticing they forgot to be dishonest on the 3 as they'd been for a long time on the S and "correcting" it.

After the first free 5% power bump, they lowered the listed P time to 3.2 (again reflecting 1 foot rollout but NOT telling you that) and the AWD to 4.4 (which is the non-rollout time, but not telling you that).


They didn't update the website for either after the second free power bump...though they NOW appear to have done so- dropping the listed P time to 3.1 (which is within ~0.1 of what all the owners and car mags measure with 1 foot rollout).... but listing the AWD at 4.2.... which is 0.3 slower than the 1 foot rollout times owners and car magazines get- but about right for the NON rollout time.

 

[Pezpunk]

We know they're still doing it based on calibrated measured 0-60 times from both numerous owners, and numerous car magazines, that all roughly match each other.... and all of those measurements using 1 foot rollout are all within about 0.1 seconds correct for the P listed times.... but all much further off for the non-P versions of the same car (even when measured by the same person with the same measuring device.


What's more- we SAW Tesla do it.

When the 3 AWD and P first launched- they were NOT doing this (despite having already done it on the S for years).

At launch, they listed the P at 3.5, and the AWD at 4.5

Both which which were roughly correct for NON rollout times.


Then a few months later the P magically changed to 3.3, despite no updates that changed power output at all. While the AWD stayed at 4.5

That was them noticing they forgot to be dishonest on the 3 as they'd been for a long time on the S and "correcting" it.

After the first free 5% power bump, they lowered the listed P time to 3.2 (again reflecting 1 foot rollout but NOT telling you that) and the AWD to 4.4 (which is the non-rollout time, but not telling you that).


They didn't update the website for either after the second free power bump...though they NOW appear to have done so- dropping the listed P time to 3.1 (which is within ~0.1 of what all the owners and car mags measure with 1 foot rollout).... but listing the AWD at 4.2.... which is 0.3 slower than the 1 foot rollout times owners and car magazines get- but about right for the NON rollout time.

who cares.

 

[Knightshade]

I'd just like to point out that I found evidence several years ago that GM was in fact advertising their performance models differently:

Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

Post #283

The gist is that they appeared to advertise the Camaro ZL1 with 1 foot roll-out, but not the SS, to better differentiate the performance of the ZL1.

Credit where it's due- this has been discussed a TON on the 3 forums and I'd never seen anyone find evidence of anybody other than Tesla ever doing this.

Though I don't believe Chevy has continued doing this?

who cares.

You apparently- enough to reply about it anyway

 

[Drumheller]

who cares.

It matters to people that care about integrity. Tesla is doing so much right and helping that it is sad to see some tarnish added by shady car dealer practices. Having the order page still start with the price set to "including incentives and gas savings" should be changed, as well.

Better for Tesla to play it all straight and really shine compared to other car sales.

 

[Lessmog]

who cares.

EXACTLY.
It this the thread for race horse emissions?

 

[khorton]

Let's do some simple calculations, assuming we have a car that can accelerate from a dead stop to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds. For simplicity, we will assume the acceleration is constant.

60 mph = 88 ft/s

V = at

a = V / t = (88 ft/s) / 4.2 s = 21 ft / s^2

V^2 = 2 * a * s

V = sqrt( 2 a s) = sqrt( 2 * (21 ft / s^2) * (1 ft) ) = sqrt( 17.4 ft^2 / s^2) = 6.5 ft/s = 4.4 mph

So, if the acceleration is constant, 0 to 60 with a 1 ft rollout is really the time from approximately 4.4 mph to 60 mph, or the time to accelerate 55.6 mph. If they were to measure the time to accelerate from 0 to 55.6 mph, and then advertised that time as the 0 to 60 time, would that be honest?