-
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
Guys there's an elephant in the room
Most P90DL are not like TRC andre likely will be in the vicinity of 11 and 2.8 not 10.8 and 2.65 so that's not very incremental and we should give Tesla some credit because in 1 year since P85D they almost shaved off more than a whole second off the QM and from 3.2 sec to 2.5 sec and that's not shabby or anything to scoff at!!
My 2 cents
P.S I had an M5 F10 CP and was 3.6 sec and after 6 years of engineering BMW has managed to improve numbers from 4.1 sec down to 3.6 sec and that's not to mention that several years same model and zero changes !!!
Give Elon a break
I get a kick out of your post because sometimes people accuse me of giving Tesla and Elon too much credit.
msnow incedentally accused me of looking upon them as deity.
An accusation like that is of course utter nonsense and poppycock. Indeed delusional. But in that mind of his, he sees it as truth.
I'm glad they said 10.9 when they did, and glad that they stuck to it.
It will never be disproven and the controversy from it, fades deeper into the sunset with the passing of each day and to the immense chagrin of some in here, but very few, if any, outside of here.
Last edited:
soooma
Member
That's why BMW tends to underrate their cars to over deliver because they don't need the hype but Tesla needs the hype and so am gonna help them sell more cars! I am an early adopter and love the fact that it's an American car and makes me proud that the whole world will change how they look at EV because of an American company, we've done it again like iPhone did in 2007 yet we can get too busy splitting hairs and forget to celebrate the fact the we are fortunate enough to drive a 2.6 sec and 11 sec car without having to be very rich or millionaires!! And some of us here are but I am not
That's why BMW tends to underrate their cars to over deliver because they don't need the hype but Tesla needs the hype and so am gonna help them sell more cars! I am an early adopter and love the fact that it's an American car and makes me proud that the whole world will change how they look at EV because of an American company, we've done it again like iPhone did in 2007 yet we can get too busy splitting hairs and forget to celebrate the fact the we are fortunate enough to drive a 2.6 sec and 11 sec car without having to be very rich or millionaires!! And some of us here are but I am not
Now see, that's what I'm talking about.
Thank you for saying that.
Tesla has given us an awful lot and a lot to be proud of and for a reasonable price.
Tesla does/did indeed need something to make people stand up and take notice. 10.9 was just the ticket. And the fact that Motor Trend, a recognized and respected long running periodical stated same, straight up validated that ticket.
And with Ludicrous, both as it was offered to pre existing P85D owners and as it was offered in the P90D, Tesla made people take notice.
Oddly enough though, Ludicrous and the P90D get more respect outside of here than they do in here.
Go figure.
But one thing that strangely irks some in here but cannot ever be changed is that the "legacy" or "legend" as it were, of Ludicrous and the P85D and P90D, clearly forced all of the ICE naysayers to admit that EVs were a force to be reckoned with, and at around that same time the "golf cart" jokes and "Tesla only survives off gubment money" derision became more scarce.
Let's hope they learned the lesson but it's an old one.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Abraham Lincoln
Biggest problem with that attempted analogy, is that it calls for a belief that Tesla was attempting to "fool" people to begin with.
If in fact that's his position, well then I'd tell him "don't punk out, go ahead and come clean and call it that."
And then he can prove it.
Oh yeah, I know. "They weren't lying. They were just fooling people and making them pay 10 grand on a completely false promise. That different."
If Tesla is in the business of fooling people "some of the time", and you're calling them out on that, well then why in hell be a hypocrite and still drive one of their cars?
If he thinks that Tesla was in fact trying to "fool" people, well then don't just make the wild accusation. Prove it.
If in fact that's his position, well then I'd tell him "don't punk out, go ahead and come clean and call it that."
And then he can prove it.
Oh yeah, I know. "They weren't lying. They were just fooling people and making them pay 10 grand on a completely false promise. That different."
If Tesla is in the business of fooling people "some of the time", and you're calling them out on that, well then why in hell be a hypocrite and still drive one of their cars?
If he thinks that Tesla was in fact trying to "fool" people, well then don't just make the wild accusation. Prove it.
Last edited:
other way around, it will never be proven.... non-dragstrip and corrected numbers do not count...
Tesla's claim is backed up by a major periodical and independent source.
The burden of proof that this claim is a lie, is on those calling the claim a lie.
If there are those who actually think that they can meet that burden, well then there are plenty of lawyers out there willing to take their money to "help them" meet it.
So far though, no takers.
Last edited:
Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
how do you turn it off and on? you just activate by holding brake down and hitting the accel pedal
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Keep in mind you need Ludicrous and Max battery on. Otherwise you just get the car yelling at you.
soooma
Member
I just clocked my car from 0-62 mph with about 10% SOC
and iPhone 2% SOCAnd it was faster than my Ex Fossil Car ) M5 F10 Comp Package with "Full tank" LOL
WOW!
Tesla P90D really dying hard
I can't believe with almost out of charge
I still remember one of those nights when i took my ///M 5 and did several runs and all were above 4 and I was bummed as i had been hoping for the 3.6!!
You've argued this way before.
Where is it said that the 10.9 reported by Motor Trend was a corrected time?
Where does Tesla state or did Elon state during his July 2015 statement that 10.9 was a corrected time?
In all the months since the P90D has been out and up until the last few weeks since the P100D was released, where has Tesla represented the 10.9 as a corrected figure?
And most importantly of all:
Which customer who they sold the car to was told that 10.9 was as a corrected figure?
While trying to say, or offer up an "out", that the 10.9 time "must have been corrected" is an attempt to keep from calling the claim a lie, and those making it liars, it comes nowhere close to succeeding in doing that because neither claimant, neither Tesla nor Motor Trend has represented their reported 10.9 as such.
All of this arguing against 10.9 though is futile. Once Motor Trend confirmed Tesla's claim of 10.9, no amount of arguing is going to change that.
Since the magazines (archives) are the typical usual and customary reference for many authors and indeed many others researching the specs on any vehicle, and Motor Trend is one such periodical, P90D with Ludicrous will very likely be recognized as a 10.9 car by all but a handful of diehards in here.
And finally, all of this v1 v2 v3 stuff, likely won't be talked of much further than in here either.
Last edited:
Not only does MT say in their documentation that they apply corrections they actually list what those are so its not even a question. I just assume that if people argue otherwise they have never read or understood the information provided by MT. If they didn't in this one specific test they should have said so. Secondly, it wasn't at a drag strip with lights. Those that have tried to reproduce this either by vbox or at the track have not been able to achieve the same results and it's been well over a year. So we have to assume it was corrected or it was a ringer car. Third, Tesla put these specs on their order page and also referenced the MT results and people paid in excess of $120k-$130k for these cars, not a trivial or insignificant amount. They should be compensated in some way and made whole. As has been noted in this thread and elsewhere they have gotten away with making exaggerated claims before wrt horsepower, speed and range in effect overpromising and underdelivering. If they want to move beyond being a niche automotive company they need to have credibility. I notice attempts at doing that lately and like most I love my car. Let's hope they continue on that path.
Again Tesla never said anything about a corrected number.
Secondly MT never inducates that correction factors were used for their Tesla P90D result and even if they did, not one of us knows what impact on the raw number, if any impact on the raw number, any correction method they would have used would have.
It's "convenient" that those wanting to make this argument, are therefore arguing that whatever "correction factors " Motor Trend supposedly used, the end result came out to "exactly " 10.9.
At this point I challenge anyone here claiming MT's result is a corrected result, to conclusively show and prove that Motor Trend's 10.9 result for the P90DL was in fact actually a corrected result.
In other words, show your evidence that theirs was a corrected result.
Motor Trend does indeed describe their testing procedures and explains that correction factors are used in ICE vehicles to allow for environmental impact on the car's (engine) performance.
They go on to say that they reduce the use of correction factors for hybrids.
They say nothing as to if correction factors are used in results obtained for EVs in general, nor in the Tesla in particular.
So anyone talking about "correction factors" is assuming first that they were used in this EV, when there is absolutely no evidence that they were, and secondly that IF they were used that whatever corrections were applied "conveniently" resulted in a number which was 10.9.
I'll check to see if Motor Trend has tested any other Teslas in the quarter mile and see if "correction factors" we're used with them as well.
Does anyone know?
I'm betting that whatever number they (Motor Trend) got with the P85D Insane, that it is consistent with what Tesla states and with what actual owners got.
Proffering this "they used correction factors" is a nice try, but it won't save one from having to admit that if they're calling Tesla's 10.9 claim untrue and an attempt at deceit, that they are also dragging MT in on that conspiracy theory.
It's also extremely strange that neither Tesla themselves nor Motor Trend have ever never offered this correction factor "excuse" in support of the 10.9 claim, but rather it's been manufactured by those who curiously want to devise a way to call Tesla's claim 10.9 a lie without calling those who uttered it, neither Tesla nor Motor Trend, liars. And it doesn't work, for all of the reasons stated above. .
Finally the argument "if it wasn't done on a drag strip, it wasn't done", sounds good but won't work either because most other manufacturer's quarter mile testing is not done on drag strips either, and Motor Trend makes a statement to that effect.
Elon's statement and Motor Trend's results are their representations of how much time it takes the car to cover a quarter mile of distance from a standing start.
Their statements can only be either a lie or the truth.
Secondly MT never inducates that correction factors were used for their Tesla P90D result and even if they did, not one of us knows what impact on the raw number, if any impact on the raw number, any correction method they would have used would have.
It's "convenient" that those wanting to make this argument, are therefore arguing that whatever "correction factors " Motor Trend supposedly used, the end result came out to "exactly " 10.9.
At this point I challenge anyone here claiming MT's result is a corrected result, to conclusively show and prove that Motor Trend's 10.9 result for the P90DL was in fact actually a corrected result.
In other words, show your evidence that theirs was a corrected result.
Motor Trend does indeed describe their testing procedures and explains that correction factors are used in ICE vehicles to allow for environmental impact on the car's (engine) performance.
They go on to say that they reduce the use of correction factors for hybrids.
They say nothing as to if correction factors are used in results obtained for EVs in general, nor in the Tesla in particular.
So anyone talking about "correction factors" is assuming first that they were used in this EV, when there is absolutely no evidence that they were, and secondly that IF they were used that whatever corrections were applied "conveniently" resulted in a number which was 10.9.
I'll check to see if Motor Trend has tested any other Teslas in the quarter mile and see if "correction factors" we're used with them as well.
Does anyone know?
I'm betting that whatever number they (Motor Trend) got with the P85D Insane, that it is consistent with what Tesla states and with what actual owners got.
Proffering this "they used correction factors" is a nice try, but it won't save one from having to admit that if they're calling Tesla's 10.9 claim untrue and an attempt at deceit, that they are also dragging MT in on that conspiracy theory.
It's also extremely strange that neither Tesla themselves nor Motor Trend have ever never offered this correction factor "excuse" in support of the 10.9 claim, but rather it's been manufactured by those who curiously want to devise a way to call Tesla's claim 10.9 a lie without calling those who uttered it, neither Tesla nor Motor Trend, liars. And it doesn't work, for all of the reasons stated above. .
Finally the argument "if it wasn't done on a drag strip, it wasn't done", sounds good but won't work either because most other manufacturer's quarter mile testing is not done on drag strips either, and Motor Trend makes a statement to that effect.
Elon's statement and Motor Trend's results are their representations of how much time it takes the car to cover a quarter mile of distance from a standing start.
Their statements can only be either a lie or the truth.
Last edited:
This remains so much ridiculous gum gnashing in the absence of any single shred or corroborating evidence...
EDIT: for clarity, the statement above is no longer true, as some recent versions of Model S have achieved 10.9. However, as originally claimed, no v1 Model S has done so.
So we are still waiting for a v1 Model S, as originally claimed, and the months tick by ... anyone who defends the Tesla claim has the obligation to support it with evidence, sufficiently
documented so that the feat can be repeated and the evidence confirmed. This happens to be how science confirms facts. Anything less is, at best, an unsupported
assertion. If you want to call an unsupported assertion a LIE (or a religious belief, or marketing BS, or anything else) then so be it. But you can't call it the TRUTH.
The silence from Tesla (or MT), failing to provide any supporting evidence for their claim, is the most damning. So forgive those who suspect it might not be available.
- Status
Similar threads
