Dragtimes P90D Ludicrous 0-60mph and 0-100mph video

[lolachampcar]

Better yet, it would have been nice if MT actually brought up the fact that production cars do not repeat those results. I suspect there were many owners that would gladly have offered thier car for a direct comparison.

That at would have been journalism.

 

[sillydriver]

The statement "first test review" indicates that they "reviewed" a test.

Didnt say whose test it was.

It's semantics, but I think the review is of the car, not of the test. What kind of review of the car? A 'test review', meaning their review process involves a test. In fact their 'first' such 'test review' of the car.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't want to be an apologist for either MT or Tesla -- but I think they did test a ringer of a car.

 

[ERP]

I believe MT recorded the data from testing a P90D. The driver in the photos looks like the author, who's bio is linked at the top of the article. The figure eight test data is not something you can copy and paste from another source. Its a MT test and I trust they ran it to collect the data, there's also a picture of the car with significant tire compression going around a cone. So they question is, why is this particular P90D so much faster? Is it a press car just to prove the orignial stats, or is it an indication of what all P90D's can do with a new update?

 

[sorka]

The car also has an external antenna mounted probably for a pbox or vbox.

Also, the time and temperature are not in the dash like the latest update has...unless they removed it again in an even more recent update that nobody else has.

If it's a ringer, then it's probably not related to a software release but rather a remote setting or service feature flag.

 

[Andyw2100]

Previous experience has shown us that even those new to MS can achieve consistent results that are comparable to "professional" drivers. We are not imagining things and I do not think there are any magic particles (like no pano, different wheels, etc.). The current P90DL is an 11.4 car on its best day in the current configuration.

If his friend were a sumo wrestler he wouldn't have cost him 5-6 tenths and up to 8 mph.

Also, looking at his slips, it doesn't appear that he made any "errors". His 60ft times are good and we know that he wasn't shifting. Unless he forgot to put it in ludicrous there is not much left to mess up.

If you guys believe that the first-timer's results are representative, I'm completely fine with that. I was just pointing that fact out so that people wouldn't say I was out to "Get Tesla" again.

If this problem does develop into the problem it appears that it may be developing into, it will probably be closely related to the issue I've been vocal about, so I didn't want people to think I was trying to push things in that direction, since I've been accused of that before.

I'm just following along with great interest at this point.

 

[lolachampcar]

I'm just thrilled the car (any variant) can actually do it. Unlike the motor hp thing where I know the battery can not source enough power to allow both motors to operate at full potential at the same time, there is a track record for Tesla exceeding their 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. We now know it can be done when and if Tesla wants to deliver it.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm just thrilled the car (any variant) can actually do it. Unlike the motor hp thing where I know the battery can not source enough power to allow both motors to operate at full potential at the same time, there is a track record for Tesla exceeding their 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. We now know it can be done when and if Tesla wants to deliver it.

It would be very worrisome if there was no car out there that can reproduce the 1/4 mile. Right now I'm leaning on this being a software update thing given at least there is a car that can do this. That's the silver lining I guess.

 

[lolachampcar]

My thoughts exactly and we are likely to see that update soon given Tesla facilitated the MT review thus had input as to when confirmation of the 1/4 mile number went to press. Doing it long before the ability of owners to replicate the number would be PR suicide.

 

[sillydriver]

The car also has an external antenna mounted probably for a pbox or vbox.

View attachment 99499

Also, the time and temperature are not in the dash like the latest update has...unless they removed it again in an even more recent update that nobody else has.

If it's a ringer, then it's probably not related to a software release but rather a remote setting or service feature flag.

Sorka -- very good catches about the antenna and about the dash. The antenna pretty much closes the case that they did the test.

Your conclusion that the performance is a matter of a setting rather than a software release fits this evidence. That raises the question: why isn't the setting already on for customer cars? The best answer I can think of is that they discovered that having the setting on, allowing owners to actually use the performance, compromises the long-term reliability of the car, with the possibility of increased warranty costs for Tesla. For example, the amount of torque and heat put through the motor at high RPMs (high road speed) may damage and wear the bearings prematurely, leading to early motor replacement. Or battery life may be shortened enough that it would lead to a pack replacement under warranty.

I really hope I am wrong, because those are not problems that are easy to work around for our existing cars. If hardware reliability is the issue, there may be no software upgrade waiting in the wings to give current owners the promised performance. And if there isn't a problem like this, then what are they waiting for: the article shows that the setting, or whatever brings about the performance, does exist. Why isn't it on, especially since having it on would obviously make owners more satisfied?

Someone please argue why this pessimism is unfounded.

 

[lolachampcar]

Musk prematurely announces free OTA update that will provide performance not seen outside the factory. There is no confirmation of this, but I heard 2.9 sec 0-60 numbers from the AWD test mule over six months before the P85D announcement. I suspect the OTA update was intended to provide 2.8/10.9 performance.

Engineers found hardware issues during the verification phase.

Tesla has to make Ludicrous a $5K plus labor option and faces backlash.

P90DL ships but with limited performance to see how it goes in the field.

Tesla now has enough data to let loose the rest of Ludicrous thus the MT review.

OTA update to follow.

This is my guess.

 

[mikes_fsd]

Someone please argue why this pessimism is unfounded.

I honestly think they - Tesla - just want to control the narrative, have another round of positive headlines.

I do believe it is software controlled (not a secret setting), but these are just my musings...

 

[sillydriver]

Tesla now has enough data to let loose the rest of Ludicrous thus the MT review.

OTA update to follow.

This is my guess.

I guess that is the key argument, and it makes sense: why the **** would Tesla give MT a ringer to test, knowing that customers are already confused and disappointed, if they weren't going to satisfy the customers really soon.

 

[mdevp]

the only apples to apples comparison in the US is with rollout......

I really agree with this statement, well said. I feel the rollout debate is a moot point if every American car is tested with rollout. Why would you state your 0-60 time w/o rollout and put yourself at a disadvantage against your competition? The general buyer has no idea what rollout is.

 

[sorka]

Musk prematurely announces free OTA update that will provide performance not seen outside the factory. There is no confirmation of this, but I heard 2.9 sec 0-60 numbers from the AWD test mule over six months before the P85D announcement. I suspect the OTA update was intended to provide 2.8/10.9 performance.

Engineers found hardware issues during the verification phase.

Tesla has to make Ludicrous a $5K plus labor option and faces backlash.

P90DL ships but with limited performance to see how it goes in the field.

Tesla now has enough data to let loose the rest of Ludicrous thus the MT review.

OTA update to follow.

This is my guess.

Probably and it also probably won't follow the P85Ds upgraded to L.

 

[qwertzy]

I think owners need to retest Max Battery power on their ludicrous cars.

 

[sillydriver]

Probably and it also probably won't follow the P85Ds upgraded to L.

So to clarify: do you think the P85D upgrade will be close to the 2.6/10.9 P90DL that has the new software/setting, or do you think the software/setting won't apply to the P85D upgrade, so that car will be left in the dust.

 

[Andyw2100]

I guess that is the key argument, and it makes sense: why the **** would Tesla give MT a ringer to test, knowing that customers are already confused and disappointed, if they weren't going to satisfy the customers really soon.

I hope you are correct.

Assuming you are, the question remains, though: Why does Tesla continue to have to first confuse and disappoint its customers before eventually delivering?

If they eventually deliver the software that will allow the P90D with Ludicrous to complete the 10.9 second quarter, it will meet the spec it was sold as having, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER PEOPLE STARTED TAKING DELIVERY OF THE CAR. Why? This is exactly analagous to what Tesla did with respect to the P85Ds and Torque Sleep. The cars were delivered without any Torque Sleep capabilities, were not getting close to the expected efficiency, and no one had any idea why for about a month.

I understand that Tesla, perhaps because of Musk, may be overly optimistic with respect to timelines. I understand the need to sell cars. But to keep conducting business this way is wrong, and its going to hurt the company.

I know for certain that as a P85D owner, I would have been a lot happier if, when I took delivery, someone said, "Oh, and by the way, Torque Sleep isn't active yet, but it should be in a month or two." I can't imagine very many P85D buyers would have refused delivery over that. Similarly, I expect P90D with Ludicrous buyers would have been happier with an explanation that their cars are not yet quite capable of achieving a 10.9 second quarter mile time, but soon will be, rather than having to have found this out on their own, worrying for a few months about whether or not the car would ever achieve the 10.9 second quarter.

I really think that someone needs to get the point through to Tesla and Musk that for the long-term good of the company, honesty really is the best policy.

 

[sorka]

So to clarify: do you think the P85D upgrade will be close to the 2.6/10.9 P90DL that has the new software/setting, or do you think the software/setting won't apply to the P85D upgrade, so that car will be left in the dust.

The pessimist in me thinks it will be the latter.

 

[qwertzy]

From what I read , Max Battery power with V7.0 isn't going to cut it.

Motor Trend Review of P90D | Forums | Tesla Motors

Ctrl F JC2

Yup, that would be me racing with "George with SacEV" last night at the Sacramento Raceway drag strip with my P90DL Max Battery: Ready! with v7.0.56.
1/4 time (speed in MPH)
11.403 (115.17)

 

[SteveG3]

From the Motor Trend piece,

"As fabulous as Tesla's new semi-autonomous autopilot feature is, the 762-hp Model S P90D is a car that begs to be driven. The P90D starts life as an already-insane Model S P85D but with the P85D's 221-hp front and 470-hp rear (691 hp combined) motors swapped for a front motor that makes 259 hp and 244 lb-ft of torque and a rear motor that produces 503 hp and 469 lb-ft of torque. Total output is 762 hp and 713 lb-ft of torque."

Not looking to rehash the discussion of how Tesla describes combined horsepower, but I thought the P90D's ludicrous changes did not include different motors from the P85D. Looking on the website, I don't see information on this. Are these actually different motors in the car Motor Trend tested?