-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!
- Thread starter sorka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
- Status
Yea, that seemed to work fine. I was using the $40 suction cub that vbox sells(expensive). But I figured outside not going through glass was going to get me the most accurate results.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
It's especially unfortunate as Mason Dixon prepped up to the 1/8th mile for essentially a Jr Dragster event. I was the only street car there aside from a bunch of pintsize go-karts with lawnmower engines. Those little things just don't do anything to the track and I would have essentially had the prep to myself.
I think the tweet and links are less relevant than the 10.9 quote.
Motortrend and car/driver mph is substantially higher than any s pre recent power hike has acheived. There is no real doubt they had preview hardware / software that (with tweets, quotes, links etc) was effectively being promoted as current and practically (even a 1 in 50 passes) acheivable for anyone buying then but wasnt ...
it is irrelevant how motortrend tested. Before endorsing it, Tesla should have been sure it is relevant. Otherwise, if someone here claims a 9 ... should that immediately be posted up as gospel for new customers?
People dont go to the track and think if i was to account for (quite irrelevant to s) temperatures, barometric pressures and altitudes, this may have been a 10.
As per motortrend ice models, they would like to be able to travel to a low altitude track and run that 10 ... but they cant cos it wont matter much ... probably run slower.
Ultimately though, a 10.9 (with or without 122 quote or motortrend endorsement) needs around 122mph and 500kw to get the job done ...
Alex
Car and Driver's MPH was 121 mph. And that wasn't a trap speed.
Recently an owner of a P85D posted a trap speed of 119.64 mph.
real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times
That's just 1.36 mph slower than the speed that Car and Driver reported, and theirs is no doubt a Vmax at the end of 1320 ft, and the 119.64 is a speed over the last 66ft of a drag strip, which would be lower than Car and Driver's speed at 1320 ft.
Also someone has matched the Car and Driver 11.1 and in a car which may have been heavier than theirs.
So I don't know that it's possible to absolutely conclude that they had "preview hardware/software" in light of the above.
Not sure I follow you. Before Tesla endorsed what??
I follow your point, but I don't think anyone in here expected to see 11.1 at 116mph. After seeing that, I'm not entirely sure that this car can't break 11 seconds at less than 122 mph
Last edited:
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Pretty sure there is no hardware involved. Just an app called Powertool with iphone.
Make sure that the road is flat when you do the test. 0-60mph, 0-100 mph, 1/4 mile time and speed, 1/8 mile time and speed, 0-60 ft etc
Make sure that the road is flat when you do the test. 0-60mph, 0-100 mph, 1/4 mile time and speed, 1/8 mile time and speed, 0-60 ft etc
The vbox has very precise elevation measurements so you can tell exactly what the elevation change is at each foot. It shouldn't rise or fall more than a foot or so.
Car and driver didnt run the 10 even at - 121mph.
By tweeting an outcome (and indeed having a correlating 10.9 on the web) you are endorsing that outcome as credible and representative of your expectations while at the same time knowing you also gave them updated software ( and possibly hardware to do it ) ... this does mislead customers ...
The 120+ passes all look to be "new battery" related.
A 116mph or even 117mph 10 is like a shutdown of power before the line. Unlikely to acheive a reliable 10@117 without some kind of power /let off.
All in all ... just look forward to the (required) software update to deliver on the commitment. ... tesla would not let us great supporters and those responsible for model 3 success and beyond down.
Just to add to the record, I hit 453 kW at 91% SOC with max battery on and ready (power tools measured). First launch since my L upgrade was completed Thursday. Battery: 1074980-00-E. ODO: 16.7K, rated range: 224@90%
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
It is relevant and it does matter. How a drag strip measures speed and how MotorTrend does it are in fact very different. MotorTrend uses either a radar gun or GPS (Source: Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend). Now, compare that to how a drag strip measures speed which is based on the time it takes to cover the last 320ft of track. Because of this, MotorTrend will almost always show a higher speed than what is on a time slip. My main point is that if you measure something with different methods, you get different results.
uhh...Yeah, they do. All the time. Racers need to know this information in order to be competitive and posers use it as an excuse for why they suck at the track. There are several websites that even help calculate these corrections(Let me google that for you). I'm not sure you are aware of just how impactful heat, humidity and air pressure affect the performance of an ICE.
I agree here. The car falls on it's face after the launch. I would guess an honest trap speed of 120+ OR a 60' in the 1.4x range would be needed. I really don't see how this car could launch any harder.
I think there is doubt. When people here (whom have dayjobs that probably don't involve doing instrumented testing of cars) are getting 11.1s with pano roofs and general hobbyist effort, the 10.9 from MT is easily explained by a combination of:
1) no pano and other lightweight car
2) experienced driver who probably fiddled with launch techniques etc.
3) perfect track prep without greasy noisy hot rods dripping oil and water on the track
4) ICE correction overly correcting for EVs
With those factors undeniably at play, I see no reason to add the bad faith and dishonest providing of a ringer.
And especially re factor #4 since Car and Driver tested a very similar at the same time and came up with an uncorrected 11.1.
Right, so you have no examples. I don't care about anecdotal experiences of single owners being disappointed, I mean where the whole FLEET of cars can't meet the specs.
It seems almost certain that they have more capacity from the reported rated miles, unless between new aero and new base wheels they were able to meet that improvement. Using the old consumption it comes out to almost exactly 90kWh usable.
If an owner of the new pack could please report what the Rated consumption is, that would be very helpful. The most straightforward way to do this is until the dashed line and the solid line in energy analyzer are exactly overlapped, report the Wh/mi there.
I've been saying all last week that these new 90 kW batteries have more capacity just based on what users are reporting in the various "What's your 90%" threads. I don't know if that proves they're 95 or 100 kW packs, improved BMS, or newer battery chemistry but, to me, if someone actually starts showing better times at the track it would make sense that it's due to hardware changes rather than software.
To further muddy the waters, remember that the 90D is now rate 6 more miles with the refresh than the old style; 294, up from 288. One could argue that it could still support both theories on increase battery capacity as well as reduced consumption.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Right. That's what I said /s. But let's not drop into internet rage arguments. It seems you are upset about this and I'm really not interested in and emotional discussion here. I'f you would like civilized discourse we can continue.
- Status
Similar threads
