Attention Tesla.com Web Master!

[ewoodrick]

It isn't a singular declaration. Seconds indicate multiple or plural. Less than 1 second. Fewer than 2.5 seconds.

There are fewer than 20 people in this thread.

This isn't a debate about what "sounds" correct, it is about what is truly grammatically correct.

I have a lot of pet peeves in my old age.

I still don't think that you get it. Let's switch it to feet. 2.5 feet. It's a little as 2.5 feet long. It's as few as 2.5 ft just doesn't make the same since.

It's a comparison of size.

 

[Dameon]

So please tell us how you would make it grammatically correct and an accurate and truthful statement?

Fair enough, but that creates another series of debates about the validity of the data. How did Tesla generate the data that yields the statement? Is it an engineers slide rule using mathematical constants that generated the number? Based on the weight of the car, the available traction, data points along the run to account for wind resistance, amp loss to heat (where ambient temperature could be a factor), etc. or did they run a P100D down a track 20 times and average the number?

They sound as though they are willing to bet that no one could produce a better number than 2.5 seconds or they would have stated 2.4 seconds or 2.3. Maybe 2.5 seconds was the best of a number of runs or it is truly the theoretical mathematical best that a particular reference built model could produce.

Maybe I spend to many cycles of my prefrontal cortex on pointless observations.

"From zero to 60 mph as quick as 2.5 seconds."

 

[SDRick]

I am not so concerned about the grammar but the fact that the whole premise is false.

"The quickest acceleration on earth", I would question the premise first and worry about the semantics once that got sorted out.

 

[mongo]

1 second. 3 seconds. It is quantities of seconds to reach a given end point, in this case, 60 mph.

If you were comparing cars, you could could say this car accelerates in fewer seconds, I suppose.

I can't think of an example where acceleration can be used as a noun. More of a verb.

Acceleration is most definitely a noun. This car has an acceleration of 16 fps/s...
acceleration - Google Search
Accelerate is a verb.

The acceleration is singular. One acceleration = 2.5 seconds.

When referring to time or money, less is normally used even with numbers. Specific units of time or money use fewer only in cases where individual items are referred to.

The only occasion in which you might say, "I have fewer than twenty dollars," would be when you were talking about specific dollar bills or coins, such as "I have fewer than twenty silver dollars in my collection."

Fewer or Less?

 

[Dameon]

I am not so concerned about the grammar but the fact that the whole premise is false. "The quickest acceleration on earth", I would question the premise first and worry about the semantics once that got sorted out.

Yes, I agree. That's what I alluded to above. My assumption was that Tesla somehow validated the statement as a whole regardless of the grammatical means of delivery. Marketing is rarely reality.

 

[kvandivo]

The three minutes I have just spent reading this thread is three minutes of my life I'll never get back.

 

[Dameon]

Acceleration is most definitely a noun. This car has an acceleration of 16 fps/s. Accelerate is a verb.

I'll concede that. My brain was synonyming the two words... I do realize synonyming is not a real word.

 

[commasign]

I think it’s time for a class action lawsuit. Or a sit in. Who’s with me?

 

[Dameon]

The three minutes I have just spent reading this thread is three minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Was it, at least, thought provoking?

 

[Dameon]

I think it’s time for a class action lawsuit. Or a sit in. Who’s with me?

I might consider involvement if the payout is a new Roadster.

 

[Dameon]

When referring to time or money, less is normally used even with numbers. Specific units of time or money use fewer only in cases where individual items are referred to.

This is a definition I haven't heard. The example of dollars make some level of sense, but that is because dollars can be tangible or not. Time can't. Dollars have grown, in English vernacular, to be a non-tangible unit of measure for wealth. It evolved from a physical object you can hold and count. Time, currently anyway (or should I say: at this time), can't. You can't lay seconds on a table and sort them or distribute them.

Sounds like another foray, for me anyway, into the entricities of the English language.

In the meantime, enjoy a video...

 

[HankLloydRight]

Fair enough, but that creates another series of debates about the validity of the data. How did Tesla generate the data that yields the statement? Is it an engineers slide rule using mathematical constants that generated the number? Based on the weight of the car, the available traction, data points along the run to account for wind resistance, amp loss to heat (where ambient temperature could be a factor), etc. or did they run a P100D down a track 20 times and average the number?

They sound as though they are willing to bet that no one could produce a better number than 2.5 seconds or they would have stated 2.4 seconds or 2.3. Maybe 2.5 seconds was the best of a number of runs or it is truly the theoretical mathematical best that a particular reference built model could produce.

Congratulations on attempting to move the goalposts. Does it really matter what the actual number is and how Tesla got there? Whatever the number, it's always measured in seconds, unless it is EXACTLY ONE SECOND. If it's more than one second, it's 1.1 seconds. If it's less than one second, it would be 0.9 seconds. Since no production car (yet) can accelerate from 0-60 in exactly one second, your entire premise fails, and the argument is still about the word 'seconds'.

And if the number were exactly one second, would you be ok with "in as little as one second"?

"From zero to 60 mph as quick as 2.5 seconds."

Quickly?

 

[eladts]

I could accept that seconds is the indirect subject/object, but the measurement is the rub. It should be fewer seconds. Like the finger on chalkboard signs at the grocery store... "This line is for 10 items or less".

Seconds and items are not the same. Item are countable objects. Seconds are human abstraction to measure time, which isn't a countable object.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Quickly?

My wife informs me that 'quick' is correct.

 

[Buggle]

This must be the single dumbest thread in the history of humanity. Even those dumb replies on YouTube where teens start by arguing about music and end with in depth insults relating in some way to someones sexuality are better than this. Why would someone take this up as an issue? Can't get my head around it...

 

[GWord]

This must be the single dumbest thread in the history of humanity. Even those dumb replies on YouTube where teens start by arguing about music and end with in depth insults relating in some way to someones sexuality are better than this. Why would someone take this up as an issue? Can't get my head around it...

 

[mongo]

Seconds and items are not the same. Item are countable objects. Seconds are human abstraction to measure time, which isn't a countable object.

I'll be counting the minutes until a rebuttal to this...


"The Final Countdown"
-Europe (hilarious that it was covered by Asia...)

The fastest times around the Nürburgring are enumerated at:
List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times - Wikipedia

(this is why I like compilers, if it's not an error, it's valid, not necessarily right, but valid)

 

[Dameon]

And if the number were exactly one second, would you be ok with "in as little as one second"?

Actually, yes. Second is a "countable" noun.

Countable / Uncountable Nouns
In connection with a little / a few people often speak of countable nouns and uncountable nouns.

Countable nouns have a singular and a plural form. In plural, these nouns can be used with a number (that's why they are called 'countable nouns'). Countable nouns take a few.

Example:
4 friends – a few friends
Uncountable nouns can only be used in singular. These nouns cannot be used with a number (that's why they are called 'uncountable nouns'). Uncountable nouns take a little.

Example:
3 money – a little money
Note: Of course you can count money – but then you would name the currency and say that you have got 3 euro (but not „3 money“).

 

[Dameon]

Seconds and items are not the same. Item are countable objects. Seconds are human abstraction to measure time, which isn't a countable object.

But seconds are countable by the definition and example above. Not tangible, but countable.

This may be one of those usages that falls into the personal preference category. I will continue to use fewer just because it sounds right.

I also have opposition to exceptions to the a/an before a word beginning with a vowel.

 

[Dameon]

This must be the single dumbest thread in the history of humanity.

Oh no, there are MUCH dumber threads in this forum alone. Visit Reddit once in a while. Mind blown.