Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Dual Motor Performance 0-60 times

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
@forkee Thanks so much for posting these! If you can get a 90-100% SOC, flat straightaway reading that would be so awesome!! Gonna have my eyes glued to this thread. Was this on 20" or aeros? Can't wait for the Upgrades Package vs stock aeros times....
 
no prob guys. i was also awaiting numbers from anyone prior to mine, but i guess no one else before me was interested in getting them? o_O? im seriously looking forward to reaching the usual 0.5-0.6 second "overshoot" as the other models but now i don't think that's possible as it's hard to reach even the claimed 3.5s, let alone joining the high 2s club.

im charging it right now but it's trickling along on my 110v. going to take all day to bring it above 90%. might just bring it over to my dad's 220v wall connector for an hour.

it's on the stock 18's with the aero hubs off.
 
no prob guys. i was also awaiting numbers from anyone prior to mine, but i guess no one else before me was interested in getting them? o_O? im seriously looking forward to reaching the usual 0.5-0.6 second "overshoot" as the other models but now i don't think that's possible as it's hard to reach even the claimed 3.5s, let alone joining the high 2s club.

im charging it right now but it's trickling along on my 110v. going to take all day to bring it above 90%. might just bring it over to my dad's 220v wall connector for an hour.

it's on the stock 18's with the aero hubs off.

From what I've seen so far you're probably right :(

Unless there is some uncorking or other software optimization, I think getting 3.3-3.4s or even 3.5 is gonna be under best conditions only.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: davidc18 and P85_DA
no prob guys. i was also awaiting numbers from anyone prior to mine, but i guess no one else before me was interested in getting them? o_O? im seriously looking forward to reaching the usual 0.5-0.6 second "overshoot" as the other models but now i don't think that's possible as it's hard to reach even the claimed 3.5s, let alone joining the high 2s club.

im charging it right now but it's trickling along on my 110v. going to take all day to bring it above 90%. might just bring it over to my dad's 220v wall connector for an hour.

it's on the stock 18's with the aero hubs off.
PS4's on the 18's or MXM?
 
Oh, they are all season MXMs

They feel about head to head with insane mode, maybe a skosh under it. Will give you a headache after several runs, it pulls that hard.
 

Attachments

  • 20180727_130145.jpg
    20180727_130145.jpg
    347 KB · Views: 83
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: byeLT4 and P85_DA
From a basic physics standpoint, the amount of force need to maintain the same speed on a hill is directly proportional to the slope %. So if you have a 7% incline, it will take 7% more force to maintain the same speed compared to a flat surface. Your calculation above is a rough estimate but doesn't take into account other car related variables when you add extra weight and drive on a curve. There's also inherent inaccuracies when calculating speed via GPS especially when driving on a curve, not to mention the elevation change calculations.
Technically grade isn’t really directly proportional to force down an inclined plane, but for small angles (including 7%) it is a good rule of thumb.

rampAngle = atan(grade/100)
gravityForceRamp = mg*sin(rampAngle)

So we are fighting an acceleration down the ramp of g*sin(atan(grade/100)) since mass falls out.

The negative gravitational acceleration equates to 0.069g for the 6.91% grade. Average net acceleration was 0.72g on the run so in theory we might have done 0.72 + 0.069 = 0.789g on flat ground. This would be 3.47s to 60mph.

This is still an oversimplification but should be reasonably close. Man, I miss doing physics sometimes.
 
Technically grade isn’t really directly proportional to force down an inclined plane, but for small angles (including 7%) it is a good rule of thumb.

rampAngle = atan(grade/100)
gravityForceRamp = mg*sin(rampAngle)

So we are fighting an acceleration down the ramp of g*sin(atan(grade/100)) since mass falls out.

The negative gravitational acceleration equates to 0.069g for the 6.91% grade. Average net acceleration was 0.72g on the run so in theory we might have done 0.72 + 0.069 = 0.789g on flat ground. This would be 3.47s to 60mph.

This is still an oversimplification but should be reasonably close. Man, I miss doing physics sometimes.

Woah Mr. Fancy Pants breaking out the formulas.

Yes, my explanation was over simplified, and I stand corrected. :)
 
  • Funny
Reactions: D3xDt3Reaction
It's interesting to note how more flat the G-Force curve is on the P3D compared to the SP100D:
Tesla-Acceleration-Chart.jpg


SP100D gives you at that sharp shove and tapers off very
It looks like the P3D stays relatively constant from 0-35 and drops off slower after 35mph.
 
Last edited: