Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[St Charles]

Exactly.

And that seems to me to be a more likely possibility than Elon Musk standing up back in July of last year and telling a bold face lie.

This!

 

[St Charles]

I have 1394-00-A.

I've registered a peak power of 495kW. On that power level I have managed a 11.08

Previously my best was 492kW. It was that power level that I got the 11.05

And a few months previous, in May, I ran an 11.15. I do not have a log for this pass but it is widely regarded to be at the 457kW level.

 

[msnow]

I have 1394-00-A.

I've registered a peak power of 495kW. On that power level I have managed a 11.08

Previously my best was 492kW. It was that power level that I got the 11.05

And a few months previous, in May, I ran an 11.15. I do not have a log for this pass but it is widely regarded to be at the 457kW level.

Got it. So for the comparison you want to do both the battery part number and firmware level should be the same right?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm following back to this thread. From what I understand, Motortrend got 10.9 (likely 10.9xx by drag racing convention) with a car with as few options as possible (no pano-roof etc), with software that had launch control, and the car fully charged. Unless there are people that replicated those conditions, I don't think people can conclude it is impossible.

I think the charge level is especially important because it has been demonstrated that the peak power varies significantly based on SOC.

 

[P85DEE]

You are saying it now, today, this minute

Lol. Unbelievable.

First the talk about Usain Bolt and now this.

You're trying to wiggle out of it, that's a flip flop. An apology is not "saving face", it's the opposite but as it turns out I didn't need to based on your statement today.

You are consistently calling anyone who disagrees with you cry babies, boo hooers, absurd, naysayers, and on and on and now you're telling me I can't believe my lying eyes. Let the facts speak for themselves.

They already have.

Here's your accusation:

"You made a point of saying Tesla used the word "capable" therefore implying that they had some wiggle room."

If that's true well then you should be able to point to where I "made a point of saying Tesla used the word "capable"...

And you can't point to where that happened. Because it didn't happen. And you know it and I know it.

 

[msnow]

Lol. Unbelievable.

First the talk about Usain Bolt and now this.



They already have. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Yet you can't dispute the facts even by going back and editing your previous post in an attempt to correct them (yes I saw what you did there ) or trying to insult me.

 

[FlatSix911]

Again ... time to relax this conversation a bit.
Take a Ferrari to the track if you really want to experience bogus performance claims.

Gentlemen, time to lighten up a bit ... we are getting very close to maximum plaid.
View attachment 186007

 

[msnow]

Again ... time to relax this conversation a bit.
Take a Ferrari to the track if you really want to experience bogus performance claims.

Point taken. I'm done.

 

[P85DEE]

Yet you can't dispute the facts even by going back and editing your previous post in an attempt to correct them (yes I saw what you did there ) or trying to insult me.

No more than your trying to insult me with false allegations of flip flopping and:

"You made a point of saying Tesla used the word "capable" therefore implying that they had some wiggle room."

One more time, I never said what you accused me of saying in the above.

You apologized for it once, but now it is you who is "flip flopping" and apparently taking your apology back.

My apologies you didn't say that...

That's right. I didn't. So why are you flip flopping now and trying to say that I did?

 

[NSX1992]

That's 0.1 seconds out of 3 seconds, so it would be about 0.36 seconds out of 11 seconds. So the 10.9 would become about 11.26.
The P85DL wouldn't just be slower to 60 but over the whole 1/4.

That conclusion is totally wrong. I had the same hope when Tesla announced a .2 sec improvement for both 0 to 60 AND 1/4 mile in their Ludicrous order. My logic thought if Ludicrous could gain .2 sec in 0 to 60 then by the end of the 1/4 mile it should gain a lot more if it kept accelerating at a faster clip than a standard P85D. Unfortunately Tesla was right as the P85DL runs out of steam above 60 mph which is a well known fact. Even an P85 is close to an P85D above 60. The fact is Tesla has great torque and all wheel drive but a similar powered ICE will have a greater speed at the end of the quarter and be gaining. The P85DL is battery limited and acceleration rate drops off with increased speed. My .1 sec difference assumption is also substantiated by my 11.22 run against the fastest standard P90dDL of 11.15 a difference of .07 sec.

 

[NSX1992]

The fact is, that your own results, and multiple concerted efforts at achieving those results, are being used to chip away at the "Tesla over promises and under delivers" argument, an argument that you seem to have a tendency to embrace, and you don't like it one bit that your results and efforts can be and have been used in this manner, and successfully so.

That's what this boils down to.

Your own efforts and results show that Tesla delivers the goods, in your own case at the very least, but one may have to make considerable effort in order to reap the benefit.

But no, I don't have to speak for you, and feel no need to because your own words are in the archives of this forum for everyone and anyone to peruse.

You very, very grudgingly acknowledged that 10.999 could be considered as having satisfied the spec, and at last close observation, were still at work attempting to gather ammunition in an attempt to disprove that.

real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times

"I have e-mailed Motor Trend asking if a reported 10.9 could be in reality a 10.999..."

real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times

Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

So what is wrong with asking MotorTrend if their 10.9 could be a 10.999 to clarify the issue? They still have not replied. I also have not grudgingly accepted that 10.999 could meet the spec only that a 10.999 in drag racing terms is considered running in the 10.9s as well as 10's. But I would love seeing a 10.999.

 

[P85DEE]

So what is wrong with asking MotorTrend if their 10.9 could be a 10.999 to clarify the issue? They still have not replied. I also have not grudgingly accepted that 10.999 could meet the spec only that a 10.999 in drag racing terms is considered running in the 10.9s as well as 10's. But I would love seeing a 10.999.

My apologies you didn't say that. I missed you had quoted him.

This is part of what I'm talking about.

You ask what's "wrong" with it? Well I'm not here to debate the "morality" of it, hence I have no comment on what's "wrong" with it.

That said, it does show a willingness to quibble over 99 hundredths of a second, or less, at least partly it would seem, in the hopes of bolstering a position.

Indeed I'm being generous with the 99 hundredths statement.

Actually my best recollection, and again I can or will attempt to produce the actual post if necessary, your position appears to be that anything over 10.949 should be considered for "rounding up".

This isn't a solution to the matter, but rather appears to be an effort to "nit pick", especially in light of the fact that we are comparing results reported from drag strips and as such it would seem reasonable to use drag strip tradition and decorum when evaluating the results.

Coming from a person such as yourself, with over 50yrs of drag racing experience, that's particularly concerning.

But I'm not here to comment as to what's "wrong" with it

Better to state the fact that in drag racing parlance 10.999 is still considered to be in the 10.9s, and let observers decide for themselves on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of attempting to dispute that in the context of this discussion.

But we both know that a "successful attempt" to have the now current sentiment among some in here that 10.999 would indeed be considered as meeting the spec "overturned", would go a "long way" toward supporting the "Tesla over promises and under delivers" argument.

I must say though that your effort "altruistic" as you may want it taken to be, demonstrates that it is amazing what we will do for a tenth of a second, or in this case .049-.099 seconds.

 

[TIppy]

That conclusion is totally wrong. I had the same hope when Tesla announced a .2 sec improvement for both 0 to 60 AND 1/4 mile in their Ludicrous order. My logic thought if Ludicrous could gain .2 sec in 0 to 60 then by the end of the 1/4 mile it should gain a lot more if it kept accelerating at a faster clip than a standard P85D. Unfortunately Tesla was right as the P85DL runs out of steam above 60 mph which is a well known fact. Even an P85 is close to an P85D above 60. The fact is Tesla has great torque and all wheel drive but a similar powered ICE will have a greater speed at the end of the quarter and be gaining. The P85DL is battery limited and acceleration rate drops off with increased speed. My .1 sec difference assumption is also substantiated by my 11.22 run against the fastest standard P90dDL of 11.15 a difference of .07 sec.

The analysis wasn't meant to be rigorous. My point was that you couldn't just look at the difference in the first 3 seconds. Both the 85 and 90 do hit a battery limited horsepower, but I would think a 90Kwh battery would have a higher max power. Less voltage sag, maybe. So what ever the 90 was able to do in the next 3 seconds, the 85 would take a little longer. Assuming the extra power is proportional to 90kwh/85kwh, the 85 should take about 3.17 seconds to achieve the same difference in speed above 60 that the 90 did in 3 seconds. As for the difference you quote for your car vs the fastest standard p90dl, I think that gets back to what this thread is about, different driver, different car with different weights and different tracks, etc.

 

[St Charles]

That conclusion is totally wrong. I had the same hope when Tesla announced a .2 sec improvement for both 0 to 60 AND 1/4 mile in their Ludicrous order. My logic thought if Ludicrous could gain .2 sec in 0 to 60 then by the end of the 1/4 mile it should gain a lot more if it kept accelerating at a faster clip than a standard P85D. Unfortunately Tesla was right as the P85DL runs out of steam above 60 mph which is a well known fact. Even an P85 is close to an P85D above 60. The fact is Tesla has great torque and all wheel drive but a similar powered ICE will have a greater speed at the end of the quarter and be gaining. The P85DL is battery limited and acceleration rate drops off with increased speed. My .1 sec difference assumption is also substantiated by my 11.22 run against the fastest standard P90dDL of 11.15 a difference of .07 sec.

This is similar to what I see with my P90DL. The car is pretty much done at 100MPH as the kW drops off rapidly. oddly, when I look at the acceleration graph it seems largely unaffected by the power levels recorded. I would really love to see the torque values from each motor as they would tell a better story as to what is happening.

 

[St Charles]

The analysis wasn't meant to be rigorous. My point was that you couldn't just look at the difference in the first 3 seconds. Both the 85 and 90 do hit a battery limited horsepower, but I would think a 90Kwh battery would have a higher max power. Less voltage sag, maybe. So what ever the 90 was able to do in the next 3 seconds, the 85 would take a little longer. Assuming the extra power is proportional to 90kwh/85kwh, the 85 should take about 3.17 seconds to achieve the same difference in speed above 60 that the 90 did in 3 seconds. As for the difference you quote for your car vs the fastest standard p90dl, I think that gets back to what this thread is about, different driver, different car with different weights and different tracks, etc.

A lot of drag racing is about how the driver and the car get along with each other. Many of my posts here are in attempt to bring those points to light. Thanks for chiming in.

Like has been mentioned above, these cars are amazingly consistent at the track in the right circumstances. Several of the traditional drag racing factors are removed. Environmental factors seem to have almost zero impact on our cars. We also don't have to worry about shifting and launching the car. These are great for us once we have lined up but there are several other factors we just don't have standard visibility into. We know SoC matters but there has been some debate in the past regarding optimal SoC and temperature for power generation. We also do not have a good handle on how these motors react as heat load increases. We can make general assumptions that heat is bad but there are just not enough datapoints to draw specific conclusions. I would also love to see datalogs from the launch control system. I wonder how much it modulates power output and braking to keep the tires from slipping.

 

[ShotgunF15E]

What tires do you have?

 

[ShotgunF15E]

I have 1394-00-A.

I've registered a peak power of 495kW. On that power level I have managed a 11.08

Previously my best was 492kW. It was that power level that I got the 11.05

And a few months previous, in May, I ran an 11.15. I do not have a log for this pass but it is widely regarded to be at the 457kW level.

What was your SOC when you got the 11.05 ?

 

[George Parrott]

Checking the photo shoot and written details on the Motor Trend tested P90DL it HAD $15,000 in options above the base $115,000 configuration AND it did have the PANO roof as far as I can tell from the photos. MT also says the car car "run 10.9 second quarters" essentially right off the showroom floor.

 

[msnow]

Checking the photo shoot and written details on the Motor Trend tested P90DL it HAD $15,000 in options above the base $115,000 configuration AND it did have the PANO roof as far as I can tell from the photos. MT also says the car car "run 10.9 second quarters" essentially right off the showroom floor.

Link please.

 

[NSX1992]

This is part of what I'm talking about.

You ask what's "wrong" with it? Well I'm not here to debate the "morality" of it, hence I have no comment on what's "wrong" with it.

That said, it does show a willingness to quibble over 99 hundredths of a second, or less, at least partly it would seem, in the hopes of bolstering a position.

Indeed I'm being generous with the 99 hundredths statement.

Actually my best recollection, and again I can or will attempt to produce the actual post if necessary, your position appears to be that anything over 10.949 should be considered for "rounding up".

This isn't a solution to the matter, but rather appears to be an effort to "nit pick", especially in light of the fact that we are comparing results reported from drag strips and as such it would seem reasonable to use drag strip tradition and decorum when evaluating the results.

Coming from a person such as yourself, with over 50yrs of drag racing experience, that's particularly concerning.

But I'm not here to comment as to what's "wrong" with it

Better to state the fact that in drag racing parlance 10.999 is still considered to be in the 10.9s, and let observers decide for themselves on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of attempting to dispute that in the context of this discussion.

But we both know that a "successful attempt" to have the now current sentiment among some in here that 10.999 would indeed be considered as meeting the spec "overturned", would go a "long way" toward supporting the "Tesla over promises and under delivers" argument.

I must say though that your effort "altruistic" as you may want it taken to be, demonstrates that it is amazing what we will do for a tenth of a second, or in this case .049-.099 seconds.

For your information the difference between 10.9 and 10.999 is not 99 hundredths as you state but it is 99 thousands. There is no need to dig out a past comment as you like to do as I said if you are rounding to three digits then anything above a 10.949 would be 11.0 but I conceded that that a 10.999 is a run in the 10.9s in drag racing. How come you have not commented on my questions of why Tesla does not use MT 2.6 vs 2.8 and maybe the 2.8 could be 2.899? And how about the lady driver bettering the Model X time by .1 sec on her first time out? Maybe Tesla learned a lesson not to publish times that no one can achieve.