-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
That's the downside to being Electric. All torque, gets a great holeshot, but with lack of horsepower, it falls flat about midway down. Watch any drag race video against a high performance car and almost all of them get killed by 3-4 car lengths out of the hole but then start catching back up after the midway point with the quickest cars out there successfully passing the Tesla before the finish line.
For most Tesla owners, 1/4 mile times and actual drag racing is extremely rare. I'm not sure there's another car on the planet that gives you the holeshot feel that the Tesla does. It's that experience that has led to all the youtube reaction videos. most owners seem to back off around 60-70 miles per hour. So for 90% of Tesla owners, the car already has more than they'll ever use as most won't stay on it long enough to feel it start laying down after about the length of a football field.
Can't argue with that. Acceleration past 100mph is for closed course competition. Holeshot on AWD vehicles can always be wicked if you have traction. Like getting shot out of cannon. Trap speeds in the 1/4 are often used for is HP estimates. It's not going to apply correctly to a Model S AWD. ICE cars make full power all down the track when you have traction and enough gearing. So drag calculators won't work for EVs unless they have a gearbox.
Guys I sure do hope that 11.1 was not a corrected time.
I'm thinking that it wasn't. If it was, then why did it not correct out to 10.9 unless it was just a really bad day?
A corrected 10.9 is bad enough. But a corrected 11.1 is even worse.
I'm anxiously awaiting today's actual drag strip results.
Good luck to those running and above all else, be safe.
I'm thinking that it wasn't. If it was, then why did it not correct out to 10.9 unless it was just a really bad day?
A corrected 10.9 is bad enough. But a corrected 11.1 is even worse.
I'm anxiously awaiting today's actual drag strip results.
Good luck to those running and above all else, be safe.
Of course, but that didn't keep MT from correcting whatever they actually got to 10.9 seconds.
But consider this, at 1 mile high, like in Denver, the P90DL's 532 hp is going to be equivalent to a car that has 644 hp at that altitude because the EV loses nothing at altitude while the ICE does. This is why a P90DL kills a Z06 at that altitude when it would be completely the opposite at sea level.
So it's not too hard to see how MT could have gotten confused especially if they really were at altitude.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I've raced at Bandimere (Denver), and your ET's suck in ICE vehicles. Even turbo/supercharged cars show losses, about 1/2 as much. Since most the racing up there is in the summer, perfect place to run an EV.
IIRC, the DA (air density altitude equivalent) was over 9,000' due to high temp and humidity last time I was there. Brutal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. By rights you most certainly wouldn't, for the reasons which you already state. In fact the whole idea of correcting a quarter mile ET for sea level in an EV is absurd.
But there is talk that this may have been exactly what happened with the reported Motor Trend results.
ken830
Model S 85, Model 3 Performance, Model X LongRange
That's actually not a downside of electric... It's a downside of having only one gear ratio versus many. And it's a design-decision that is made possible because of the electric motors incredible torque curve. Keep in mind that if any gasoline-powered "high performance car" only had one gear, it would be completely slaughtered by a single-speed electric (in nearly any race)
It's a trade-off that Tesla made by going with a single-speed -- Simplicity and reliability vs. high-speed performance.... Frankly, they didn't give up much on the performance-side, and I feel they made the right choice. The Roadster, at one time, had a 2-speed transmission...
A 2nd gear would help a lot over 120 MPH(or just a little above 100 MPH). Pick any gear ratio you want for the P85D(L)(90D)(L) and you won't get any faster acceleration from 70-90 MPH. I you think this isn't correct, propose a different ratio than 9.73 (r) / 9.34(f) and show me the math.
At speeds well past 100, it's a different story as feedback from the motors past a certain RPM makes lowers the efficiency. A 2nd gear would help on the Autobahn but you'd lose efficiency at lower speeds due to having to have a transmission inline.
- - - Updated - - -
Another typical 11.3 from today. Not seeing the P90DL getting below 11 unless Tesla unleashes more power via a software update.
Last edited by a moderator:
While it appears to have beaten the Z06 in that race, albeit with a worse ET than the Z06 had, 10.9 is still a long way off.
On the one hand the 11.3 is disappointing considering that 10.9 is the mark.
But on the other hand a 2.5 ton sedan has no business giving a C7 Z06 that kind of a headache in a quarter mile race.
The Tesla has a hole shot that will give a lot of cars out there a hard time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
If the added 19 inch carbon fiber rims they could get the car down another 3/10ths Carbon Fiber Rims.
Check out the Feb 2016 issue of Car and Driver and the review on CF wheels, they did some acceleration runs on a Mustang GT350R with stock CF wheels, and then with the AL wheels that come on the non-R. http://blog.caranddriver.com/tested-...-fiber-wheels/
The difference is pretty unbelievable--more than a second quicker from 30-50 in a top gear roll-on.
Wheel weight difference is about 21 lbs per wheel using ESE Carbon Rims verses the Tesla 21's. I expect significant improvement in performance (brake, acceleration, noise, vibration, harshness) and ultimately range and economy.
Check out the Feb 2016 issue of Car and Driver and the review on CF wheels, they did some acceleration runs on a Mustang GT350R with stock CF wheels, and then with the AL wheels that come on the non-R. http://blog.caranddriver.com/tested-...-fiber-wheels/
The difference is pretty unbelievable--more than a second quicker from 30-50 in a top gear roll-on.
Wheel weight difference is about 21 lbs per wheel using ESE Carbon Rims verses the Tesla 21's. I expect significant improvement in performance (brake, acceleration, noise, vibration, harshness) and ultimately range and economy.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good, but Tesla didn't sell the P90D Ludicrous with Carbon Fiber Rims. The car should be able to achieve a 10.9 quarter mile time in a configuration Tesla sells.
ken830
Model S 85, Model 3 Performance, Model X LongRange
Do we have torque curve and ratios mapped and documented anywhere? I'd like to try to do the "theoretical" math....
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
At least use the stock 19s. The pretty boy 21s do nothing for performance in a straight line, they just add unnecessary weight. The red p90d in the video isn't running stock rims. Those look like the forged 21 https://tsportline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ts117-tesla-wheel-gloss-black.jpg or HREs.
Last edited:
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
It would do better with these!
Good news, I spoke with ESE Carbon today - they are working with Tesla in Dania Beach FL to get the exact fitment on the center cap and make these wheels compatible with the Model X also. So I ended up going to 20 x 9 after all - so they could be used on the Model X when I buy one in the future.
Good news, I spoke with ESE Carbon today - they are working with Tesla in Dania Beach FL to get the exact fitment on the center cap and make these wheels compatible with the Model X also. So I ended up going to 20 x 9 after all - so they could be used on the Model X when I buy one in the future.
| Order Confirmation | ||||||||||||||||
| Hello Xenoilphobe, Thank you for shopping with us! We will send you a confirmation email when your products ship. [hide] - [top]Order DetailsOrder #REDACTED
| ||||||||||||||||
[hide] - [top]CommentsFinish: Gloss Carbon Exterior; Gloss Carbon Barrel Future orders mentioning: Have future Tesla orders reference "Xenoilphobe” so we know which spec to pull for both the Model X and Model S | ||||||||||||||||
| Please visit our store for more | ||||||||||||||||
| You are receiving this email because you are registered with ESE Carbon Company. Please do not reply directly to this email. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us at [email protected] | ||||||||||||||||
| www.esecarbon.com |
1. Tesla and ICE quarter miles times simply cannot be compared with respect to horsepower. You don't need nearly this much power to achieve even lower quarter mile times if you have an ideal transmission, which is nearly what you're getting in the Tesla.
2. The corvette does not "have 644 hp" at altitude. It only has 644 hp at SAE standard temp/pressure/humidity.
Still waiting to see what MT did. They usually publish a sheet with all their numbers and correction factors, I've seen it before for other cars.
- - - Updated - - -
Because the tires suck.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing