Inside Tesla - 08.21.12

[Robert.Boston]

I love the sight of Teslas in the morning. Production line review is looking good!

I have a vision of the drill sergeant inspecting the recruits standing at attention on the parade ground....

 

[J in MN]

I would have expected the Model S to better the initial acceleration times of ICE cars, while losing ground as it gained speed. But it's quite the opposite.

Remember that Model S has a single gear, roughly equivalent to the second gear of an ICE car. So, given an ICE with comparable power: In first gear, the ICE will have more acceleration, in second gear about the same, in third and higher gears it will have less - until you hit the maximum speed of the EV.

 

[Krugerrand]

Would have expected the hatch gaps to all be gone by now. That hatch looks like it's slightly cracked open (i.e. someone popped the trunk), though it's worlds better than some of the initial examples

Looks fine to me. It's consistant and have you ever bothered to look at other vehicles on the road...other expensive vehicles on the road? There's some serious gapping going on out there. Holding Tesla to a standard higher than the major manufacturers who've been in business for decades is absurd, and at the very least, unfair.

 

[AnOutsider]

Looks fine to me. It's consistant and have you ever bothered to look at other vehicles on the road...other expensive vehicles on the road? There's some serious gapping going on out there. Holding Tesla to a standard higher than the major manufacturers who've been in business for decades is absurd, and at the very least, unfair.

Actually, I have, and fully discussed it here: Panel Lines/Gaps on White Silver Model S's . First you tell me to compare to other vehicles, then shoot that comparison down. You're putting words in my mouth and then calling it absurd, for what purpose, exactly?

As I said, it's much improved at this point (especially since it's an even gap), though I thought I remembered seeing a picture where the lines were nearly flush. As for comparing to other cars with "serious gapping" -- we're discussing the Model S, not other cars. Elon himself said he was going to get the gaps as close as physics will allow (or something like that). Is it horrible? No. Could it be better? Yes, especially when such a big deal was made.

 

[MikeK]

The torque specs are similar and the all wheel drive Panamara weighs 500lb less.

If you listen closely to the audio in the Edmunds video, I think you can hear the traction control reining in wheel spin for much of the 0/60 run. It might be limited by traction at this point, and with AWD, the Panamera would have some advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said, it's much improved at this point (especially since it's an even gap), though I thought I remembered seeing a picture where the lines were nearly flush.

At least some of the showroom cars had extremely tight gaps. Much, much better than what's in this picture. If this picture represents what they are planning to deliver, I would seriously consider trying to change my color. :-(

 

[KenEE]

If you listen closely to the audio in the Edmunds video, I think you can hear the traction control reining in wheel spin for much of the 0/60 run. It might be limited by traction at this point, and with AWD, the Panamera would have some advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

I've asked Tesla about this. I was/am wondering what's going on, because Edmunds test vehicle had wider than standard tires in the rear.

From their review:

Link: 2012 Tesla Model S Track Test

Quote: “Tire Size (front): 245/35ZR21
Tire Size (rear): 265/35ZR21 (101Y)
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Pilot Sport PS2
Tire Type: Asymmetrical summer performance”

But I confirmed with Tesla that the performance ships with 245's front and rear. (NOT the 265 used in the review)

 

[MikeK]

I wonder if that tire size is an error in the review. I would be surprised if they had made extra-wide turbine wheels.

 

[KenEE]

Wouldn't need to be different wheels. A given wheel can take a range of widths. The thing for me is I expect my 0-60 in 4.4 sec. car to do it with stock tires. I doubt Inside Line made a mistake on reading the tire size.

 

[action7981]

I'm not a tire guy, but you can put 265's on rims that have stock 245's, at least for smaller rim sizes. Only experience is pickups. Not sure about lower profile tires like the 265/35ZR21.

 

[jerry33]

Pilot[SUP]®[/SUP] Sport PS2

265/35ZR21/XL can be mounted on rim widths between 9" - 10.5". 9.5" is the measuring rim.

The 245 can be mounted on rim widths between 8" - 9.5". 8.5" is the measuring rim.

 

[NotTarts]

Wouldn't need to be different wheels. A given wheel can take a range of widths. The thing for me is I expect my 0-60 in 4.4 sec. car to do it with stock tires. I doubt Inside Line made a mistake on reading the tire size.

They also got the price completely wrong, so I wouldn't ut it past them.

 

[KenEE]

I've emailed the editor to verify the rear tire size. They are doing a performance review so price may not be a priority, but it would be a matter of pride to misread the tire size.

Hopefully they will clear it up. -ken

 

[Robert.Boston]

If this picture represents what they are planning to deliver, I would seriously consider trying to change my color. :-(

Mike, sounds like you're have "white anxiety"! Come over to the dark side....:tongue:

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Another interesting thing is that the Model S has a 0-30 time of 2.0 seconds, while doing 0-60 in 4.3 seconds. It's quarter mile time is 12.6 sec @ 108.3 mph. Meanwhile, the 2013 Porsche Panamera GTS, as tested by Edmunds as well, does 0-30 in 1.4 seconds and 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. It's quarter mile time is 12.5 sec @ 108.2 mph. So much for the instant torque of the EV Model S besting some of the fastest ICE cars out there. I would have expected the Model S to better the initial acceleration times of ICE cars, while losing ground as it gained speed. But it's quite the opposite. In fact, the Model S does better from 30-60 vs. the ICE based Panamera (2.3 sec vs. 2.7 sec), and further closes the gap by the 75 mph mark (and holds that line through the quarter mile time). Perhaps that explains why I really didn't get the same gut wrenching, kick in the butt feeling when flooring the Model S during the test drive, as I have gotten while driving other fast cars. But in many ways, I'd rather have more power from 30-60 since that actually benefits real world driving, as opposed to off-the-line acceleration.

Thanks.. that info let me find the Inside Line comparison they put out today. I've been going off of C&D estimates or the 2012 numbers which aren't as good.

- - - Updated - - -

That 0-30 number sounds like they were using non-factory tires coupled with launch control at sea level. There is no way that most people would be able to replicate that. Most of these tests are bought and paid for by manufacturers, so there is cheating involved. This can be verified very easily by taking the car to the track, which results in much dissapointment as most people can't get anywhere near published numbers 99% of the time.

Here is the link to the Panamera tests. Edmunds is very open and transparent about these things, so I don't have a problem with the numbers -

http://www.insideline.com/porsche/panamera/2013/2013-porsche-panamera-gts-vs-2012-porsche-panamera-turbo-s-track-test.html

As stated previously, the big issue is launch control. Here are the test notes for the GTS -

The Panamera GTS is no slouch in default Drive mode. Whacking the throttle to the floor with no performance-enhancing buttons selected gets the job done quickly and very smoothly. Selecting Sport Plus, shutting off PSM and engaging Launch Control unleashes the beast with tire-spinning, short-shifting 1st and banging off upshifts with measurably more authority and harshness. This engine is so quick to rev and it's fascinating to watch the tach needle jump down (and up for downshifts) with an almost digital precision — no sloppy throttle map here.

An ICE vehicle is fundamentally a windup toy when you are trying to launch quickly from a stop. You rev the engine, pop the clutch and go. The stored energy in the engine is released through the chassis and drivetrain and the car uncoils like a spring. Once the excess energy is gone it can't accelerate as fast anymore and its a struggle to keep the engine and transmission matched up in the optimal power band for maximum acceleration.

Model S simply does not work this way. You press the throttle and it goes. It's already optimized and there is virtually no slack in the drivetrain (and no clutch to destroy). Mercedes AMG, BMW M5 and Porsche Panamera are all very fast cars that can beat MSP off the line under ideal conditions. But day to day you are likely to beat them because folks normally don't engage their launch control from a stop light, and if they are rolling already you will own them.

 

[goyogi]

Tire size of rear looks like 265. Click on the 'up' arrow to blow up the pic.
http://www.insideline.com/tesla/model-s/2012/photos/2012_tesla_model-s_whl_fe_814122.html

 

[brianman]

Looks fine to me. It's consistant and have you ever bothered to look at other vehicles on the road...other expensive vehicles on the road? There's some serious gapping going on out there. Holding Tesla to a standard higher than the major manufacturers who've been in business for decades is absurd, and at the very least, unfair.

First you tell me to compare to other vehicles, then shoot that comparison down.

I think you missed the underlined (by me) part...

 

[AnOutsider]

I think you missed the underlined (by me) part...

I think you missed the entire rest of my post.

 

[brianman]

I think you missed the entire rest of my post.

Nope, I saw it. I was commenting on that specific conclusion, which didn't seem directly derivable from the facts.

 

[KenEE]

Tire size of rear looks like 265. Click on the 'up' arrow to blow up the pic.
http://www.insideline.com/tesla/model-s/2012/photos/2012_tesla_model-s_whl_fe_814122.html

Good find! So Tesla has some explaining to do. My guess would be that if the 245's would have done the job then they wouldn't have put 265's on for the test. Not a big deal to me, but definitely should have been disclosed.

 

[mnx]

Maybe jerry33 can chime in here but I've heard him say several times that wider tires change the shape of the contact patch but do not actually increase the area of the contact patch... So I'm not sure those 265's would actually help to reduce the 0-60 or 1/4 mile time...