Great insideline track test preview of performance model S

[SCW-Greg]

However I gotta ditto on the skidpad disappointment, I was expecting 1g given the design and test drive reports. Not changing my mind though...

I think the Corvette has one of the best, if not the best at around 1g, but then again think about the tires and mass differential it has vs. the Model S. In a different league altogether.

Edit: 2011 Proto-type Corvette was 1.04g, 2010 was .98g and the 2002 was a full 1g (with good tires).
2011 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Carbon vs. 2010 Corvette Grand Sport vs. 2002 Corvette Z06 Comparison Test and Video

The Model S at .86 is phenomenal.

 

[Norbert]

I guess if Bill Ford tweeted something similar.

Not sure what you mean by that. The tweet, I'd say, implies that the testers liked the subjective driving experience as well. A lot.

 

[Norbert]

The Model S at .86 is phenomenal.

Just out of curiosity... what does the skidpad value depend on, except the tires?

 

[goyogi]

Another point to consider is ride comfort. The MSP has a pretty plush ride for a performance sedan. More aggressive suspension at the cost of some ride quality could bring it up to the handling level of the competition.

 

[contaygious]

I was just looking at the results with TC on vs. off.

In all the tests the times are the same or better with TC on! (Slalom improved by 0.8mph with TC on).

Tesla definitely has the best TC out there!

This is an interesting tidbit...

From the Panamera Turbo S:

0-60 (sec): 3.7 (4.4 w/TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 3.5 (4.0 w/TC on)

Identical times to the model S if you leave TC on with the Porsche!

Crazy! The Porsche is 80k more expensive!
Why does tc make you so much slower? Why can't you turn it off in tms then?

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

I had hoped that it would do better than .86 on the skidpad with the low center of gravity. .86 is good, but I was hoping for better. I guess the total weight has a price here also. These are the first numbers I have seen for the skidpad rating.

I was hoping for better but the weight is really a key factor in skidpad #s
still pretty damn awesome in slalom though!


... thinking about it. My rav4 has the same skidpad # I think. On my test drive (at Fremont) with a fully loaded car, I was getting onto the freeway and accelerating(but going 55 to begin with) into the last right turn. The TC barely kicked on and I was almost thinking I was going to slide into the merge sign for freeway traffic but it just kept holding and turning - there is no way that it has the same as my Rav4? I would have never made that turn at that speed.

So I think the problem is - the S does better at different radius turns than the standard skid pad.


..Rav .76 - must have been thinking about the lexus # but the s KILLS the lexus anyway

 

[Jason S]

2009 Volkswagen Tiguan vs. 2008 Honda CR-V vs. 2008 Toyota RAV4

Curiously, our tester wore the 17-inch wheels of a lesser Tiguan rather than the 18s that are supposed to be standard on the SEL. We initially thought this might have something to do with the Tiguan's 60-0 braking performance of 126 feet, which trails the Honda and the Toyota by a half-dozen feet. However, the Tiguan managed to turn in the strongest handling numbers of our comparison, posting a 63.9-mph slalom speed and sticking to the skid pad at a decent 0.80g, so perhaps the taller sidewalls of the 17-inch tires weren't a limitation after all.

Just to compare...

 

[DSA]

From these test results, it looks like the Roadster could actually have better handling than the Model S. The Model S certainly did well at Laguna Seca at the Refuel Races last month, taking the top spots over the Roadsters. There was a lot of talk that the Model S would have a much lower center of gravity to help it through turns and get around the track quicker. But the higher weight seems to be a bit of a detriment that may have been overcome by the skill of the Model S drivers back at the Refuel Races. Or the Model S's at the track were stripped down, which is likely. According to R&T, the Roadster had a skidpad number around 0.96, compared to Edmund's 0.86 here for the Model S and the Roadster had a slalom of 70.3mph compared to 66.8mph for the Model S. That's comparing apples to oranges as it's comparing Model S results from Edmunds to Road & Track results for the Roadster, but I'm betting it's close enough for government work, so to speak. Numbers only count for so much, but it looks like the Roadster could indeed maintain the performance crown in an apples to apples comparison. For example, if a professional driver drove both cars around Laguna Seca. The fact that it's even close when the Model S has much more weight, passenger space and cargo space is a testament to the engineering effort put into the Model S.

Maybe the Roadsters could reclaim the Refuel Races crown next year after all!

 

[KenEE]

...
The Model S at .86 is phenomenal.

We need to note that the test was done with (most likely) non-stock tires. The .86 was with 265's on the rear instead of the 245's that come stock.

I've asked both the Editor and Tesla about it. Tesla just said the MSP ships with 245's. The Edmund's Inside Line Editor has not responded. At least one Forum Member posted that he was told the MSP ships with 265's on the rear. I would like to see this definitively cleared up.

 

[Jason S]

We need to note that the test was done with (most likely) non-stock tires. The .86 was with 265's on the rear instead of the 245's that come stock.

I've asked both the Editor and Tesla about it. Tesla just said the MSP ships with 245's. The Edmund's Inside Line Editor has not responded. At least one Forum Member posted that he was told the MSP ships with 265's on the rear. I would like to see this definitively cleared up.

Would be nice to know if that's a difference between the 'perf' rims and the 'normal' 21" rims.

 

[Norbert]

We need to note that the test was done with (most likely) non-stock tires. The .86 was with 265's on the rear instead of the 245's that come stock.

I've asked both the Editor and Tesla about it. Tesla just said the MSP ships with 245's. The Edmund's Inside Line Editor has not responded. At least one Forum Member posted that he was told the MSP ships with 265's on the rear. I would like to see this definitively cleared up.

Please also clear up whether other cars are tested with their standard tires.

I think the performance version ships with Continental tires. In any case, anyone who pays for a performance version might also buy the best tires for whichever purpose intended. On my last car I bought new tires without even looking at what the standard tires were. If competing cars are tested with pilot super or whatever, then Model S should get tested with same level tires, not just pilot non-super, since after the first set, it's always the owners choice.

 

[Doug_G]

From these test results, it looks like the Roadster could actually have better handling than the Model S. The Model S certainly did well at Laguna Seca at the Refuel Races last month, taking the top spots over the Roadsters. There was a lot of talk that the Model S would have a much lower center of gravity to help it through turns and get around the track quicker. But the higher weight seems to be a bit of a detriment that may have been overcome by the skill of the Model S drivers back at the Refuel Races. Or the Model S's at the track were stripped down, which is likely. According to R&T, the Roadster had a skidpad number around 0.96, compared to Edmund's 0.86 here for the Model S and the Roadster had a slalom of 70.3mph compared to 66.8mph for the Model S. That's comparing apples to oranges as it's comparing Model S results from Edmunds to Road & Track results for the Roadster, but I'm betting it's close enough for government work, so to speak. Numbers only count for so much, but it looks like the Roadster could indeed maintain the performance crown in an apples to apples comparison. For example, if a professional driver drove both cars around Laguna Seca. The fact that it's even close when the Model S has much more weight, passenger space and cargo space is a testament to the engineering effort put into the Model S.

Maybe the Roadsters could reclaim the Refuel Races crown next year after all!

Right then, I'll challenge you to 10 laps at 90 degrees F. See which car goes around faster. It'll be the Model S, because the Roadster will be at 1/4 power limit due to motor overheating.

 

[KenEE]

Norbert,

They have to use stock everything in such a test or it is bogus. Otherwise where would it stop? If you can change tires then why not engine? Rip out a few hundred pounds of material from the car, etc...

Of course mags test non-stock cars all the time, but they disclose the changes. I don't see any mention in the article or video.

Someone posted that they could read the 265 in the closeup photo from the Test Gallery. I can't see it.

2012 Tesla Model S Picture

 

[Norbert]

They have to use stock everything in such a test or it is bogus. Otherwise where would it stop? If you can change tires then why not engine?

The tires are something you have to change every once in a while, in any case. That's different than making a mod, which is an additional effort and cost (and replaces something you would normally keep). (Plus, as I said, I wouldn't be sure the other cars are tested with their standard tires, either.) To me it makes more sense to test them with comparable tires. They should have used the super version. Otherwise you are more testing the tires themselves, something not essential to the car at all.

 

[J in MN]

Someone posted that they could read the 265 in the closeup photo from the Test Gallery. I can't see it

I tried to enhance it - not sure if it helps.

 

[AndyM]

I tried to enhance it - not sure if it helps.

You should ask CSI for help...

 

[Discoducky]

You should ask CSI for help...

or Teg

 

[Vger]

Clearly says 245. So maybe Edmunds just wrote the wrong number down and propagated it.

- - - Updated - - -

Right then, I'll challenge you to 10 laps at 90 degrees F. See which car goes around faster. It'll be the Model S, because the Roadster will be at 1/4 power limit due to motor overheating.

Bingo! The Roadster will always be hampered in sustained hard driving by its inadequate thermal management (principally the air-cooled motor).

This is also likely why the Model S performance degraded in repeated 0-60 runs. BUT, the cool thing is to see how LITTLE it degraded. Big advance over the Roadster. Can hardly wait for the next sports car Tesla builds with the current or newer technology.

If the rumours of a huge motor upgrade in the works for the Roadster are true, one of the things they probably did was make it liquid cooled-- maybe even shoehorned in the Model S motor, as they did with the new RAV4 EV.

 

[nrcooled]

Crazy! The Porsche is 80k more expensive!
Why does tc make you so much slower? Why can't you turn it off in tms then?

The porsche is slower with TC on because of the fact that it is all-wheel drive. The Panamera Turbo S with a proper driver can launch VERY hard but it is also hard on the drivetrain to do that. With TC on it limits the power to the wheels to 1) put less stress on the drivetrain and 2) keep the car balanced and safe. This isn't a great comparison but my Evo and WRX (both AWD) were both significantly faster with TC off in a straight line.

Remember that the MS is RWD and the Panamera is AWD so the numbers even being as close as they are is quite impressive.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

I guess if Bill Ford tweeted something similar.

However I gotta ditto on the skidpad disappointment, I was expecting 1g given the design and test drive reports. Not changing my mind though...

The skid pad numbers weren't what I expected either. It's not purely the weight since MSP was only a couple hundred pounds heavier than M5 or Panamera. My suspicion falls on how the testing is done. With an ICE engine you can modulate the engine to help the car around turns. An electric vehicle is different and the Edmunds tester specifically noted the fact that he couldn't use his normal techniques to help the car.

However, in terms of racing it would be an advantage for an ICE vehicle since drivers actually do use the engine to help them turn corners so it's a real loss if Tesla isn't able to replicate this by tweaking the traction control somehow.

Edmunds Skid Pad notes:

Definitely felt the weight here, and the lack of a free-revving internal combustion engine means changes in throttle have less effect on the chassis. Still, car felt pretty precise.