-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Not absolutely necessary for a heavy car. Since the rear is the most bite, you might want to "clean off" the rear tires the first time out.
Drive around the water, then back into the water, pull forward to the damp area on the concrete, put it in 2wd, then spin them a second or two.
Not familiar with the controls on a Tesla, not sure if you can power brake. If not, just do a rolling burnout.
But it might not even be necessary. I'd drive around the water and stage and see what happens. The compound is pretty grippy without doing a burnout. Some tires absolutely need heating up, but not all.
REMEMBER TO PUSH AWD. Don't ask.
If you can turn off TC but leave Stability Control on, that's the way I'd run.
Barely light the second beam. Inch up on it. The further you roll forward, the worse your ET.
Last edited:
Put on smaller brakes... You only need to stop once. Still doesn't make a stock car do 10.9
scott jones
Member
Some keep repeating "times are getting faster" and more consistent:
unless im missing something only one or maybe two guys have broken 11.3 seconds.
that's not a consistency... that's one car and one driver
unless im missing something only one or maybe two guys have broken 11.3 seconds.
that's not a consistency... that's one car and one driver
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
and least we forget, everyone that stomped on the right pedal seemed to make or beat previous 1/4 spec's. At least that was before the P90DL. Tesla has got to be feeling some incredible pressure to continue to be blown off their initial course like this. We can make all the excuses and allowances we like, but there has definitely been a change.
That's what I keep saying but *some*...and I won't name names, but you know who you are, have a completely different read on it
While you're on that subject, how many P90D ludicrous cars do we have results from? And I mean time slips.
I count 3.
We don't have results from a large batch of cars to begin with. But the results from the three cars that we do have, well one of them has put down some very impressive quarter mile times, 11.2 times and 60ft times.
That those results come from an owner who has perhaps more experience attempting to get the most out of the car that it has to offer, should give us a good idea of the absolute bottom line extent of the car's capability.
And to me, that's what it's really about. They say 10.9.....well who in here, even if the car could do that, would expect to run 10.9 on 10 out of 10 attempts?
One says 11.2, and no, I don't expect anyone to go out and string together a dozen straight 11.2s.
I can can tell you or anyone else this:
Had we seen three 11.2x times to begin with, right off the bat, had we started here, we would not have had nearly the pessimism that we've seen over these last few months.
But now that these reports of 11.2 times come in "after" all of the hand wringing, we, and I don't want to name names here, you know who "we" are, don't want to accept that as a bright spot.
We want to call that a fluke. Despite the fact that it happened more than once, indeed actually 3 times, in the very small sample of results that we do have. 11.2 just came at the wrong time. It's too little to late for some of us. It could even happen a fourth time and you'd still hear the same thing.
I don't see it that way because I want to know just what the car is capable of as is.
I'd concede that it is bad to fall short of your mark. But while it may not matter to some, I'd like to know just how far off the mark Tesla is in this case.
And to me, it's looking like between .2 to .25 seconds, when we originally thought that it was more than that. So while the car is undoubtedly short of its mark, it might not be as short of it as originally thought.
Last edited:
Bill D
Member
I found this discussion as well from jak whom I had counted as one of the three I referred to earlier.
Sacramento Raceway, Wednesday 28 October, Let's TEST the newest software update
Back then he was reporting 11.4-11.5.
A few things stand out to me in comparing the 60ft times, the tires, the tire pressures, and at the reported states of charge.
19 inch Primacy tires, and at 45psi, at least from what is shown in the scanned time slips for this platform, have not yielded the 1.61x 60ft times necessary for 11.2.
Rather the best the slips showing 60ft times for that tire appear to be around 1.63x. And a 1.63x 60 seems to produce a best of 11.3 from viewing the available slips.
It has already been mentioned that much of this might be in the tires. I believe it. Looking at jaks slips at the 60s, it's clear that he was getting more tire spin than that seen in the 11.2 slips. Of course track prep could have contributed as well. But if you produce a 60ft time in the 1.63 range or worse, well then you probably won't break 11.3 in this car.
An 80-85% state of charge has not been reported where I can find, to produce anything better than an 11.3. That may or may not be the actual case; however when I look at the Vbox video from fiksgts 11.2, the car appears to be very close to a full charge. And he's running 40lbs of air and is not on 19in Primacy tires.
The passes later in the day, or the later passes for jak yielded higher ETs. Presumably as his SOC dropped toward 80%. By the time he makes his last pass an hour and 20 mins after his first, who knows what his SOC was, but it figures to have been lower than when he started. Even with a 1.63 60, at whatever SOC he was, the car can only muster an 11.4x by then.
All of of the cars had sunroofs.
So already we know a little about what configurations do not yield the best times.
It's this learning, not "additional power", nor "additional updates", which has resulted in the improvement we've seen from the first reported quarter mile results to these latest results. That was my point. And there is no denying that it is improvement.
For me, the subject matter of this thread centers primarily around the validity of the 11.1 time reported by C&D for a P90D with Ludicrous in the configuration and manner in which they ran it.
I believe their results are actual results, after seeing the results of owner cars in here, and that is of course more than I can say for the Motor Trend results.
Last edited:
ArtInCT
Always Learning
Certainly, the Model S's configuration and current charge state have quiet a bit to do with the ET's.
For instance how many who are running their S at a track have removed EVERY item that is not necessary from the S?
Parcel shelf? Frunk and Hatch cargo? Rear Seat, Floor mats, Even the UMC.
What about the driver's weight? Someone like me at 220 lbs is a disadvantage to the good ET time...
I have enjoyed the mild discussion revolving around tire pressure and size. I suspect there is something to be learned there.
However, if you have bloated your S with Pano Roof, Premium Interior, Next Gen, Ultra Sound System, Climate, slave charger, cameras, and all the other do dads
that slowly and silently add more and more weight... you really must admit that your config is not optimal for the low ET. And my never be.
The S is a heavy beast.... after all.
For instance how many who are running their S at a track have removed EVERY item that is not necessary from the S?
Parcel shelf? Frunk and Hatch cargo? Rear Seat, Floor mats, Even the UMC.
What about the driver's weight? Someone like me at 220 lbs is a disadvantage to the good ET time...
I have enjoyed the mild discussion revolving around tire pressure and size. I suspect there is something to be learned there.
However, if you have bloated your S with Pano Roof, Premium Interior, Next Gen, Ultra Sound System, Climate, slave charger, cameras, and all the other do dads
that slowly and silently add more and more weight... you really must admit that your config is not optimal for the low ET. And my never be.
The S is a heavy beast.... after all.
Careful, you don't want to "over analyze" this.
Indeed though, you're right. Thats why the question I ponder is not; "how many people out there have broken 11.3?", but rather "Are the Car and Driver times corrected times or not?"
Most every result you see reported in here is from a heavily optioned car.
Well, now that we are seeing multiple results of 11.2 seconds in even one of those, it's not a stretch for me to believe that 11.1 was obtained by Car and Driver using the car and methods they used.
Last edited:
ArtInCT
Always Learning
MT's car.... I dunno... however the C&D article implies the configuration was limited so to speak.
No Pano roof, cloth seats, no second slave charger...
On the Tesla Design Studio when you are now configuring the S there is a MAX PERFORMANCE button which configures the S
for that end purpose....
No Pano roof, cloth seats, no second slave charger...
On the Tesla Design Studio when you are now configuring the S there is a MAX PERFORMANCE button which configures the S
for that end purpose....
Bill D
Member
FYI for those comparing various performance factors: It seems Max Battery Power being fully "Ready" affected my performance more than SOC.
Below is my first run of the day. SOC was 90% so I expected the best performance, but Max Battery Power was not yet fully "Ready" and that run was 0.1 sec and 1.5 mph worse than my later 86% SOC run above, where it was Ready.
Brit4864's video compilation captured that run, which was uneventful, but at the end of his video, he had a front-row seat to the major mishap of the day. Yikes!:scared:
Last edited by a moderator:
But it doesn't delete stuff for weight. For instance, if you add pano and then go select max performance, it will add range, ludicrous, 21" wheels, carbon fiber spoiler, but it won't delete the pano if you already have it selected.
Not sure if I were them that I'd want to do that way either. Imagine how much they'd lose on options if there was a maximum performance configuration button that truly configured the car the maximum possible ETs in the 1/4 mile. It would delete everything including leather, carbon fiber spoiler. Certainly no premium sound. Can't have a sub in the back slowing you down.
What they should do is offer a stripper option that removes everything including rear seats, sound insulation, no car stereo at all, add carbon fiber wheels, etc. You'd have to pay extra for it but only about as much as it would cost for the all the extra options any ways. It would have a faster et by 2/10ths over a PD with no extra options or 3/10ths over a PD tha was loaded to the max with every weight adding option.
Not only is it bad that it's not ready, but assuming Tesla did not do the smart thing as switch off the pack heater during full throttle, then you are down an additional ~7HP from the running heater. Judging by the state of the user-visible code, I would place no bets that it gets switched off.
Bill D
Member
Very interesting theory. If you're correct about the pack heater using 7 HP while Max is turned ON and if Fiks and Lola are correct about Launch Mode not being better than Fast Foot Mode, perhaps the trick for the best ET is to wait until Max is "Ready", but switch Max "off" just before staging, and simply launch by Fast Foot. I wish you told me this last week- I would have tried it at the track. Maybe our seriously-instrumented Fiks and Lola will shed some light on this with some tests. It's easy to try.
Depending on the cooling targets you may start actively cooling the pack if you turn it on. It may be better to just make sure it reports ready for n minutes to make sure both the cells and everything around it has been properly heat soaked.
Fast foot with slip start enabled is fastest, at least in my car.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
11.199 is still a "11.1" time in drag strip language. Given Dragtimes reported 11.24 (although only v-box), and the C&D car was a lightly configured model (and they said they did close to full SOC), I don't see why that time is so unbelievable.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing