I dont have those results. And, nobody else is likely to have them because that is a very unlikely configuration. Furthermore, from 11.1 to 10.9 is a long way (as small as it seems) in that bracket power needed to gain the extra 2 tenths is much more significant than a 12 second pass. There is no 120kg to save and there is no 30-50kw to gain without hardware? And software ...
Is tesla the company that advertises stats that can only be achieved by a spec of car nobody would order and a child driver with a tail wind on a hail mary pass?
As far as i could recall, in specifying my car, i selected the ludicrous option last which stated for $ you get 2.8/10.9. Should there have been a * next to it saying you need a minor miracle for that to actually happen (as above) or perhaps should it warn that the other options you have selected mean this is now impossible?
Doesn't matter how "unlikely" a configuration either of us believes it to be.
Tesla is not obligated to make a chart of every possible configuration of P90D with Ludicrous and list it's performance specs.
Furthermore we aren't talking about a configuration that "nobody" orders.
We're talking about a configuration that "some" people won't order.
I know how far it is from 11.1 to 10.9.
And I also know that if C&D averaged 11.1 over two runs, then they either had to have run a pair of 11.1s, or they made one run which was better than 11.1 and another worse than 11.1.
If either of their runs was worse than 11.1, well then an 11.0 or better would have been needed to create an avg of 11.1.
Again, though some may dislike it, that point cannot be disputed. No way, no how. Which is probably why they dislike it.
So what do we have left?
Well, as I see it in our exchange here, your argument seems to center around seeing no submitted example, of the examples submitted, of a heavier optioned P90DL, having matched the results of a minimally optioned P90DL.
The Motor Trend test car had a curb weight of 4,689 lbs. The C&D test vehicle a curb wt of 4,842lbs.
Neither you nor I know the curb weights of all of the cars which have submitted results.
Indeed, I doubt that either of us knows, or could recite the curb weights of
any of the cars with submitted results, all of which had pano roofs.
More importantly, we know not the curb weight of St Charles' car which produced the 11.1. A time which we know to have been produced at the "old" power level, and with a pano roof and air ride, and by his own account a large sized driver.
His result literally and outright kills the "ringer" argument. Unless Tesla sold him a "ringer" too.
And yet in the face of all of this, no knowledge of the weights of the cars which have not run the spec vs the curb weights of the cars tested, plus a car belonging to a private owner amongst us, who either duplicated both runs of one magazine or
bested one run of that same magazine, you conclude that the 10.9 figure can't be accurate???
Is that it in a nutshell?
If it is, well then I don't see the logic in that.
