Model S First Drive Reviews

[nick_083]

Any thoughts why are the runs getting slower even though the battery still holds plenty of charge?

The first and second runs were the quickest, and after that it just got slower and slower despite having plenty of charge. By the sixth and final run it was 0.3 second slower.

 

[Todd Burch]

Each run generates heat in the motor, batteries, and power electronics. This heat reduces the efficiency of the drivetrain and slightly reduces performance. If between runs they had let the car cool off...or if they had driven at speed for a few miles without aggressive driving, the drivetrain would've returned to normal and numbers would've again been normal. Not unexpected or unusual at all.

 

[EarlyAdopter]

Edmunds says they are doing some range tests next. I hope they don't race it around a track and decry the fact that the claimed 300 mile range dropped to 150 miles. I cringe at the thought of this showing up in reviews and the reviewers not having the intellectual honesty to also point out that a gasoline powered cars also lose a considerable amount of range on the track, too. My Audi S4, for instance, normally gets about 20mpg. With a 15 gallon tank I'm good for 300 miles. When I track it I get about 6mpg, so my range drops to 90 miles. Funny, you never hear reviewers for ICE cars mention this.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Each run generates heat in the motor, batteries, and power electronics. This heat reduces the efficiency of the drivetrain and slightly reduces performance. If between runs they had let the car cool off...or if they had driven at speed for a few miles without aggressive driving, the drivetrain would've returned to normal and numbers would've again been normal. Not unexpected or unusual at all.

From what I can tell the video was actually made yesterday in Fontana. It's been 100+ degrees here in SoCal for the last week or two. It got bad enough yesterday that the AC unit for the upstairs of my house blew the circuit breaker and now is completely inoperational. This after a week of mid-day compressor shutdowns to protect itself against heat.

I've raced many times at the Fontana Speedway Drag Strip where they shot this video (it's about 14 miles from where I live). The strip runs almost exactly West to East and for some reason they ran backwards starting at the turnout (probably because they didn't want the VHT at the start of the track to give an advantage). The Sun was already high in the sky and based on the shadows I'd guess the first run was about 11am. By then it likely was already 90+ degrees out and quickly getting hotter.

 

[spatterso911]

2007 The M5 manual achieved 0.83g on the skid pad and 68.4 mph in the slalom,

I saw a 2005 review with 67.7 in the slalom

2013 BMW M5
0-60 mph in 3.7; no rollout, +launch control
0-60 mph in 4.1; no rollout, no launch control, +DCT
0-60 mph in 4.3; no rollout, no launch control, +Manual
0-60 mph in 4.6; rollout, no launch control
Quarter mile time - 12.3 sec without launch control
Slalom: 71 mph
Skidpad: 0.95 g
Braking (60 - 0 mph) - 116 ft

 

[wassenberg]

Tesla Model S vs. Competition: Test Drive - TheStreet

what a great article.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

2013 BMW M5
0-60 mph in 3.7; no rollout, +launch control
0-60 mph in 4.1; no rollout, no launch control, +DCT
0-60 mph in 4.3; no rollout, no launch control, +Manual
0-60 mph in 4.6; rollout, no launch control
Quarter mile time - 12.3 sec without launch control
Slalom: 71 mph
Skidpad: 0.95 g
Braking (60 - 0 mph) - 116 ft

What is your source for the 3.7 with no rollout? Both Car and Driver and MotorTrend, which are the primary publications reporting 3.7's both admit to rolling the car in their published methodologies. They've published stories to this effect, but the quickest Google link I can find that has a staffer admitting to it (Read Michael Austin "C/D Staff" post).

Acceleration Testing Methodology? - Car and Driver Backfires

Here is the quote -

Hi! We haven't changed our methodology, and we still use rollout. Currently (and going a long way back) we use 0.3 miles per hour to approximate the 1-foot rollout. The rollout time is typically around 0.2 to 0.3 second.

I don't feel like running down every publication, but anyone reporting a 3.7 is rolling the car.

Also, Michael Austin is both BSing in that post and being inaccurate as well. They use 3mph not 0.3mph and the rollout time they publish is more like 0.3-0.5 seconds faster.

Note that the methodology he admits to is not an actual test metric. They just introduce a fudge factor to make the times look better because it helps them sell magazines.

And as to their attempt to "approximate" the 1 foot rollout, their accelerometers provide actual data for that so there isn't any need to fudge except that it allows them to REALLY fudge. Many independent reviewers trying to replicate these tests believe that the published times at Car and Driver and MotorTrend actually correspond more to a 16" rollout (which is agressive, but possible in actual racing, especially with a larger tire), and that they just take a 16" time from the accelerometer as opposed to fudging anything (this time is readily displayed as one of the default options in the software).

Edmunds is the biggest reviewer which does not publish the rollout (at least without clearly labeling it, and deriving it directly from the accelerometer). They have published 4.3 for manual, 4.1 DCT but I think that is based on the factory data for the 2013 M5 (they haven't gotten to do a detailed test yet). BMW doesn't publish rollout numbers because rollout is only something that happens in the NHRA. So 4.3 and 4.1 are "true" numbers and would include launch control in the case of the DCT.

Here are useful links that I put in another post about rollouts -

Edmunds testing methodology - How We Test Cars and Trucks

the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view...it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout...While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating...Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.

Racer X helpfully lists publications and manufacturers which use rollout as well as discussing the whole controversy -

0-60 times - 6speedonline.com Forums

Car & Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend all use this simulated 12" rollout. That means when you read any acceleration time in those magazines, it's not a true 0-60, 0-100, or 0-150 mph time. It's actually measuring 3 mph to 60, or 3 mph to 100, or 3 mph to 150 mph. The car starts from a stand still, but the clock doesn't begin to run until the car has moved 12", gained 3 mph, and traveled for 0.3 seconds.

GM and Ford also use rollout when claiming their factory times...This means that British, German, or Japanese magazines will clock times that are 0.3 seconds slower than US magazines for the same car as they time true 0-60 and true quarter mile times. They use no rollout.

Quote from Car and Driver -

“Before you take out your car to try to equal our times, remember that our results are adjusted for weather conditions [see “Correcting for Weather,” page 152]. We also average the best runs in two directions to cancel out the effects of wind, and we use a 3-mph rollout. And of course there is car-to-car variability.”

One reason 3mph is bogus is that it's a rule of thumb that comes from NHRA. It has no basis in reality. Racer X is wrong in the sense that they aren't even measuring 3-60. They are just fudging.

Here is a detailed discussion of staging and rollout written by a nice guy I know who deserves the web hits, even if he isn't savvy enough to sell advertising for his content -

http://wediditforlove.com/techtalk3.html

Rollout is a real thing which can be precisely quantified with an accelerometer, but magazines tend to just introduce a fudge factor instead that tends to be more complimentary than they admit.. to sell magazines.

Bottom line, MSP compares quite nicely in 0-60 acceleration with the 2013 M5. It matches the manual transmission and is a hair slower than the DCT with launch control. Both are a bit faster than MSP in a quarter mile and would crush it in anything longer (MSP traps at ~109mph while I think M5 is ~119mph-ish)

 

[CyberDutchie]

The Street Tech review: Tesla Model S vs. the Competition: Test Drive

Wow, the most positive review for the Model S I have read to date! For the most part, the reviewer compares Model S to the Volt, but also higher end cars, even mentions of Roll Royce and Bentley. I like these statements:

"It's an eye-opener like the automotive world has never seen in its entire history."

"Tesla Model S is now the undisputed king of the automotive world."

 

[mnx]

As I read the article I thought wow this is very positive but by the time I finished I thought it was blatantly fanboyish!

This was pretty funny though, "In the comfort/refinement department, the Tesla Model S makes Buckingham Palace seem like a Burger King"

The Street Tech review: Tesla Model S vs. the Competition: Test Drive

Wow, the most positive review for the Model S I have read to date! For the most part, the reviewer compares Model S to the Volt, but also higher end cars, even mentions of Roll Royce and Bentley. I like these statements:

"It's an eye-opener like the automotive world has never seen in its entire history."

"Tesla Model S is now the undisputed king of the automotive world."

 

[VolkerP]

Tesla Model S vs. Competition: Test Drive - TheStreet

what a great article.

fully agree! Want to highlight one statement:

The Tesla Model S is so superior that it seems that it's just a matter of time until all the other car companies will have to file bankruptcy.

 

[CyberDutchie]

Tesla Model S vs. Competition: Test Drive - TheStreet

what a great article.

Sorry, didn't realize you had already posted the link. Great article indeed!

I added it to the list (thanks doug, for the Wiki edit feature!).

 

[contaygious]

I like how the author says if you haven't driven one you don't know what you are talking about! Wish more people could drive them!

 

[joefee]

Posted today by TheStreet.com the author is long TSLA and a former ThinkEquity, UBS, Needham & Company research analyst. Great Review (he did a test drive of the Rav4 as well

Tesla Model S vs. the Competition: Test Drive - TheStreet

Tesla Cars on Sale for Half the Price - TheStreet

 

[Robert.Boston]

Tesla Model S vs. Competition: Test Drive - TheStreet

Having driven the Tesla Model S on the neighborhood roads back-to-back not only against most of the other electric cars in the market today, but also comparing it against other premium cars such as Rolls Royce Corniche, I came to this startling conclusion: The Tesla Model S is so superior that it seems that it's just a matter of time until all the other car companies will have to file bankruptcy.

.... the Tesla Model S is now the undisputed king of the automotive world. ... It's an eye-opener like the automotive world has never seen in its entire history.

This guy is totally convinced. Not many people have had a chance to drive it as much as he has, though, so I'll give it some weight (even though it borders on fan-boy). Rear head-room was called out; I wish he had indicated whether that was with the pano.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

This guy is totally convinced. Not many people have had a chance to drive it as much as he has, though, so I'll give it some weight (even though it borders on fan-boy). Rear head-room was called out; I wish he had indicated whether that was with the pano.

He said textile/(synthetic-)leather combo seats. So, he may have gotten something like the Get Amped Sunset Red car that had textile and no pano - closer to bare bones.

 

[mnx]

This guy is totally convinced. Not many people have had a chance to drive it as much as he has, though, so I'll give it some weight (even though it borders on fan-boy). Rear head-room was called out; I wish he had indicated whether that was with the pano.

It didn't border on fan-boy it was more than fan-boy!

I should probably post this elsewhere, but I'm 6'4" and I sat in the back during a test drive without the pano roof. I could hit the ceiling if I wanted to, but with slouching slightly (how I normally sit in a car) it wasn't a problem.

 

[spatterso911]

What is your source for the 3.7 with no rollout? Both Car and Driver and MotorTrend, which are the primary publications reporting 3.7's both admit to rolling the car in their published methodologies. They've published stories to this effect, but the quickest Google link I can find that has a staffer admitting to it (Read Michael Austin "C/D Staff" post).

Acceleration Testing Methodology? - Car and Driver Backfires

Here is the quote -



I don't feel like running down every publication, but anyone reporting a 3.7 is rolling the car.

Also, Michael Austin is both BSing in that post and being inaccurate as well. They use 3mph not 0.3mph and the rollout time they publish is more like 0.3-0.5 seconds faster.

Note that the methodology he admits to is not an actual test metric. They just introduce a fudge factor to make the times look better because it helps them sell magazines.

And as to their attempt to "approximate" the 1 foot rollout, their accelerometers provide actual data for that so there isn't any need to fudge except that it allows them to REALLY fudge. Many independent reviewers trying to replicate these tests believe that the published times at Car and Driver and MotorTrend actually correspond more to a 16" rollout (which is agressive, but possible in actual racing, especially with a larger tire), and that they just take a 16" time from the accelerometer as opposed to fudging anything (this time is readily displayed as one of the default options in the software).

Edmunds is the biggest reviewer which does not publish the rollout (at least without clearly labeling it, and deriving it directly from the accelerometer). They have published 4.3 for manual, 4.1 DCT but I think that is based on the factory data for the 2013 M5 (they haven't gotten to do a detailed test yet). BMW doesn't publish rollout numbers because rollout is only something that happens in the NHRA. So 4.3 and 4.1 are "true" numbers and would include launch control in the case of the DCT.

Here are useful links that I put in another post about rollouts -

Edmunds testing methodology - How We Test Cars and Trucks



Racer X helpfully lists publications and manufacturers which use rollout as well as discussing the whole controversy -

0-60 times - 6speedonline.com Forums



Quote from Car and Driver -



One reason 3mph is bogus is that it's a rule of thumb that comes from NHRA. It has no basis in reality. Racer X is wrong in the sense that they aren't even measuring 3-60. They are just fudging.

Here is a detailed discussion of staging and rollout written by a nice guy I know who deserves the web hits, even if he isn't savvy enough to sell advertising for his content -

http://wediditforlove.com/techtalk3.html

Rollout is a real thing which can be precisely quantified with an accelerometer, but magazines tend to just introduce a fudge factor instead that tends to be more complimentary than they admit.. to sell magazines.

Bottom line, MSP compares quite nicely in 0-60 acceleration with the 2013 M5. It matches the manual transmission and is a hair slower than the DCT with launch control. Both are a bit faster than MSP in a quarter mile and would crush it in anything longer (MSP traps at ~109mph while I think M5 is ~119mph-ish)

Can't do launch control and a rollout simultaneously. The published 0-60 time with LC launch is 3.7

 

[FalconNinetyD]

Was the Sunset Red car a perf model?

I assumed his description of the interior referred to Alcantara.

He said textile/(synthetic-)leather combo seats. So, he may have gotten something like the Get Amped Sunset Red car that had textile and no pano - closer to bare bones.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Was the Sunset Red car a perf model?

I assumed his description of the interior referred to Alcantara.

Ah, you might be right. That red was not a perf. The 'textile' he's referring to is indeed likely the Alcantara 'suede'.

 

[KBF]

Can't do launch control and a rollout simultaneously. The published 0-60 time with LC launch is 3.7

My rookie understanding from reading previous posts here is that they simulate rollout (ie. just lower the numbers in order to get better marketing $$ from BMW based on questionable extrapolations).