TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC
Start a Discussionhttps://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/tags/

Faraday Future FF91 beats Tesla P90D at Pike's Peak

Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by voyager, Jul 1, 2017.

  1. voyager

    voyager Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2009
    Messages:
    589
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Everywhere you look, EV records keep improving. Our newest example is Faraday Future’s FF 91, which took on the Pike’s Peak International Hill Climb this weekend and shattered the previous record for a “production” EV, set last year by a stripped but otherwise mostly unmodified Tesla P90D. The FF 91 beat the Tesla’s time by over 20 seconds, setting a time of 11:25.083.
    Faraday Future sets new “production” EV record at Pike’s Peak, beating last year’s Tesla P90D by 20+ seconds

    That fast? Well, all depends how you look at the company.
    Tesla snaps up few engineers and designers from Faraday Future as they jump ship

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like x 3
  2. Grendal

    Grendal Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    3,205
    Location:
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    FF91 is not a production car. Other that that, nice job. I love that EVs are taking away the records held by ICEs. In this case it was EV versus EV though.
     
  3. brianman

    brianman Burrito Founder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,120
    "Facts". Sigh.
     
  4. BluestarE3

    BluestarE3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,652
    Location:
    Norcal
    OK, so it's an "alternative production" vehicle. :)
     
  5. RobStark

    RobStark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    4,426
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    It is a factory prototype vs a guy who owns a Model S that stripped his car of all the unnecessary trim/weight.
     
  6. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,171
    Location:
    Colorado
    Surprising what people will argue over.

    The FF cannot be bought today, but the design, parts, and manufacture are all production intent. I suppose the race category intent is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder but since I think the important distinction is between cars produced as race specific one-offs and generic cars I don't have any problem with the FF race category.

    And in many ways, racing a production prototype is even more impressive since improvements and optimisations may yet to be included.
     
  7. BluestarE3

    BluestarE3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    Messages:
    2,652
    Location:
    Norcal
    Some may argue that the FF91 will never reach production, in which case, this prototype would be a one-off vehicle.
     
  8. SageBrush

    SageBrush Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    4,171
    Location:
    Colorado
    But not built for Pikes Peak, which is I think the important distinction.
     
  9. JohnSnowNW

    JohnSnowNW Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,821
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Do we know what they modified on the vehicle? As has been pointed out, there is a big difference between stripping a production vehicle, and a manufacturer (that has full access to the vehicle) modifying a vehicle for a specific event.

    How much of the hardware and software did they modify from "production intent?" Seems to me that they had the opportunity to tune the car to a degree that is unavailable to owners of production BEVs (well at least Teslas).

    The White Zombie EV is a perfectly good example of what you can do with a vehicle if you have complete control over all the systems, and the ability to tune it for a specific activity.
     
    • Like x 1
  10. McRat

    McRat Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    4,070
    Location:
    Norco, CA
    It was certainly up to Tesla whether to provide tech support to the Tesla privateer or not. I doubt the team failed to contact Tesla and request support.

    When we set a land speed record with a GMC truck, prior to the attempt, GM agreed to provide me with tech support (custom transmission flashes), but they chickened out a month before the event for fear the coding would somehow get out into 'the wild'. This is why you won't see GMC or GM banner on our entry. A few years later, Ford Motorsports supported a team to break my privateer record by 3 mph. That's probably the most expensive 3 mph Ford ever bought, and they still didn't come close to matching my top unofficial (only 1 pass) speed.

    What would it have cost Tesla to release the programming tools or custom flashes? A few thousand at most. But motorsports are a slippery slope. What image are you trying to project? What's the brand reputation cost if you lose or break? Can you justify the budget to win, and will it reap a profit in increased sales?

    Faraday has little to lose at this point. A factory entry at a race event gives the image of a viable company, something Tesla does not have to prove anymore. Tesla has marketed themselves to the press as the world's fastest sedan, and other superlatives, so losing to Tesla proves nothing but participation. A DNF would have hurt Faraday, but they did finish. Only Faraday will be able to answer whether the entry was a good bang-for-the-buck, but I'm guessing it will help.

    Tesla has nothing to prove, and everything to lose. And they have some potential high rollers to compete with. At some point a major automaker is going to try and prove a point.
     
    • Informative x 1
  11. cdub

    cdub Future Model 3 owner / Current original Leaf owner

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    534
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
    That is a freaking ugly car. Sorry.
     
  12. zenmaster

    zenmaster Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2016
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Screenshot_20170702-121102.png
     
    • Informative x 2

Share This Page