Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[St Charles]

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 testing is not done on drag strips either and Motor Trend makes a statement to that effect.

I made this argument and I stand by it. It's not valid to test something one way and then make a claim that the results would be the same in different conditions. MT screwed the pooch on this test which is not really a surprise, to me at least. Then again, I've personally never put much stock in automotive magazines. What is a bit disappointing is that Tesla hid behind MT when no one could duplicate the result.

But Automotive companies do this all the time. A great example is fuel economy and emissions. Car companies have been cheating these figures for years and it has only been recently that anyone was actually called out.

Yeah it sucks that Tesla got caught up in something like this. It sucks that there seems like no resolution will ever come. But, we've also been having this argument for soo long that the offending model isn't even for sale anymore. There are worse things that Tesla could be doing.

 

[lolachampcar]

Please
Stop
Trying
To
Confuse
Me
With
Facts


I'm already confused enough. All by myself.

 

[P85DEE]

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.

Silence isn't damning unless there is either prejudice, a rush to judgement or both.

The burden still lies with those of the position that the 10.9 claim by Tesla was false to begin with in light of the fact that it has been vouched for by a respected periodical.

What you say above in italics works both ways.

You can't call it a lie either.

But one can even go a step further because actually Tesla's assertion was not "unsupported" but in fact was "supported" and by a credible agent.

Motor Trend.

 

[msnow]

I made this argument and I stand by it. It's not valid to test something one way and then make a claim that the results would be the same in different conditions. MT screwed the pooch on this test which is not really a surprise, to me at least. Then again, I've personally never put much stock in automotive magazines. What is a bit disappointing is that Tesla hid behind MT when no one could duplicate the result.

But Automotive companies do this all the time. A great example is fuel economy and emissions. Car companies have been cheating these figures for years and it has only been recently that anyone was actually called out.

Yeah it sucks that Tesla got caught up in something like this. It sucks that there seems like no resolution will ever come. But, we've also been having this argument for soo long that the offending model isn't even for sale anymore. There are worse things that Tesla could be doing.

Agree and another consequence of this is resale value. We've already had a couple of people come in to this thread asking "is the car I'm looking to buy with battery part number xxxx a version 1, 2 or 3 because I only want a v2 or v3" @St Charles you are one of the lucky ones but those before you not so much.

 

[P85DEE]

I made this argument and I stand by it. It's not valid to test something one way and then make a claim that the results would be the same in different conditions. MT screwed the pooch on this test which is not really a surprise, to me at least. Then again, I've personally never put much stock in automotive magazines. What is a bit disappointing is that Tesla hid behind MT when no one could duplicate the result.

But Automotive companies do this all the time. A great example is fuel economy and emissions. Car companies have been cheating these figures for years and it has only been recently that anyone was actually called out.

Yeah it sucks that Tesla got caught up in something like this. It sucks that there seems like no resolution will ever come. But, we've also been having this argument for soo long that the offending model isn't even for sale anymore. There are worse things that Tesla could be doing.

You're right. Tesla could have done a lot worse things.

Some of what you're stating is part of my point.

No, you personally don't put a lot of stock into "magazine times".

But among the subset of the car buying public which takes into account performance numbers prior to purchase, you are arguably the exception and not the rule.

Case in point, the "0-60" spec looked at for most cars is a "magazine time" or a "magazine number", if ever there was one.

Yet to this day it is perhaps the most frequently stated "stat" or "spec" you'll see talked about by those looking at "performance numbers" and using them as part of a decision.

I said earlier that when any research effort is made to the quarter mile capabilities of the P90D with Ludicrous, the first place many are liable to look is at the manufacturer's claims, and/or the published officially tested time using the available respected literature, from those with respected testing facilities and methods. Magazines or their websites. Or the manufacturer's official specs instead. That's where many if not most are liable to look.

Part of my point here St Charkes, is that car is going to go down in history as a 10.9 car, and that's whether some of us are fine with that or not.

The book is written on the P90D with Ludicrous. And many if not most of those looking for specs on the P90D with Ludicrous, are going to refer to "the book".

Those wanting to add footnotes, or "make corrections to" the original text, face a tough challenge unless they can actually prove and prove conclusively that the original text is in error.

Whether or not this impacts resale value will depend to some degree, perhaps even a large degree, on how many prospective buyers go to the trouble of sifting through this entire thread.

It says right here, that most potential and eventual pre owned buyers, will never have heard of this v(x) stuff and many of those who do, won't even care if price is a primary purchasing factor and 10.999 vs 11.200 in a fully loaded car doesn't matter to them.

To wit, I bet if you were to ask the average P90DL owner what battery he had, he wouldn't know nor care.

 

[NDR]

Ordered the same wheels (20" Nurburgring) you have for the p100d. Will be racing them at pbir next Friday. You should come out!

fiks,
Thanks for the 19 to 21 test. I'd love to see what my 20s at 10lbs per corner less rotating inertia (I know, mixing units but you get the point) would do for the same car in back to back to back.

On a different note, even though I see it over and over again it just blows me away how repeatable these cars are. You try drawing those conclusions (regarding wheels) on an ICE based on some runs and there would be no way to have confidence that the slight difference was due to a gnat on the throttle body and not the wheels

 

[fiksegts]

define credible? publishing corrected numbers with no raw data? people wrote motor trend, said they would look into it, then silence...

we could put that Motor Trend car in front of you, run it down the 1/4 mile, show you that it doesn't run 10's and you would still find some flaw to defend their original results and Tesla...

But one can even go a step further because actually Tesla's assertion was not "unsupported" but in fact was "supported" and by a credible agent.

Motor Trend.

 

[fiksegts]

and the "book" no longer exists, no longer are there published specs from Tesla of a 10.9 P90D or even P100D.... how can that be??

You're right. Tesla could have done a lot worse things.

The book is written on the P90D with Ludicrous. And many if not most of those looking for specs on the P90D with Ludicrous, are going to refer to "the book".

 

[lolachampcar]

NDR
Absolutely!

 

[vip gts]

Lola
I am also putting the 20 Nurburgring on.
Wil I need to grind down the retainer screw?
Chose these because of your review.
Thanks

 

[St Charles]

Agree and another consequence of this is resale value. We've already had a couple of people come in to this thread asking "is the car I'm looking to buy with battery part number xxxx a version 1, 2 or 3 because I only want a v2 or v3" @St Charles you are one of the lucky ones but those before you not so much.

Am I? I cant make the "published" spec either. But, I get you. If I knew then what I know now, I would have waited a few more months and bought one of the last P90DL cars off the lot. that's life on the bleeding edge of innovation.

 

[msnow]

Am I? I cant make the "published" spec either. But, I get you. If I knew then what I know now, I would have waited a few more months and bought one of the last P90DL cars off the lot. that's life on the bleeding edge of innovation.

Understood and if I had waited a couple more months I would have got the 90 with 10 miles more range for the same price but I'll bet everyone has a story like that. From a pure resale perspective you've got the fastest non refresh P90DL on the planet. Be happy, don't worry.

 

[P85DEE]

and the "book" no longer exists, no longer are there published specs from Tesla of a 10.9 P90D or even P100D.... how can that be??

That's what you're not understanding.

The "book" does indeed exist and is part of the historical record.

The "book" is the Motor Trend article verifying the original claim by Tesla which itself is on the record as well.

It's permanent.

None of this is "going away ". No matter how bad some of us want it to.

You want me to define credible?

Motor Trend magazine has been in existence since 1949. It has a total circulation of over 1.1 million, and offers its own readily recognized and highly regarded annual award. The Motor Trend Car of the Year.

It is a highly respected publication. I'd call them a credible outfit.

Would you not?

 

[fiksegts]

why did Tesla take down the 10.9 claim? no I don't consider Motor Trend credible for 1/4 mile times.... corrected/altered times do not count....

That's what you're not understanding.

The "book" does indeed exist and is part of the historical record.

The "book" is the Motor Trend article verifying the original claim by Tesla which itself is on the record as well.

It's permanent.

None of this is "going away ". No matter how bad some of us want it to.

You want me to define credible?

Motor Trend magazine has been in existence since 1949. It has a total circulation of over 1.1 million, and offers its own readily recognized and highly regarded annual award. The Motor Trend Car of the Year.

It is a highly respected publication. I'd call them a credible outfit.

Would you not?

 

[P85DEE]

Am I? I cant make the "published" spec either. But, I get you. If I knew then what I know now, I would have waited a few more months and bought one of the last P90DL cars off the lot. that's life on the bleeding edge of innovation.

Very true. And the enjoyment you got out of the car during those few months of ownership before the last P90DL cars were available is worth something too.

But as I think about it, P90D could well go down as a 10.8 car because one did it.

Oh, I know about the "versions" mentioned in here. But that's largely a Tesla Motors Club nomenclature and probably does not exist much farther from out of here.

Someone looking is liable to see that a P90D with Ludicrous has run 10.8 and not even know nor know to inquire about any "version" as Tesla makes no such distinction.

 

[P85DEE]

why did Tesla take down the 10.9 claim? no I don't consider Motor Trend credible for 1/4 mile times.... corrected/altered times do not count....

That you don't, might not matter so much.

You're very likely in the large minority.

It's difficult to see why Motor Trend would bother doing performance testing procedures if they felt , or had undeniable evidence that no one was putting any stock into their reported results anyway.

Very many people reference what some derisively call "magazine numbers".

But this derision has never stopped the practice. Hasn't even slowed it down. There is no indication that it will. And it very likely won't.

It's been here for decades and is here to stay.

It doesn't matter that a gourmet chef considers Outback Steakhouse steaks to be junk, Outback still does a brisk business among those craving a steak.

It doesn't matter that afficionados of Mexican cuisine consider Moe's and Taco Bell to be junk. Moe's and Taco Bell are busy right now.

It matters not that you don't hold MT quarter mile results in high regard, many others aside from you, do.

That's the point that's getting past you.

That 10.9 number, that 10.9 claim is going be difficult to counter with a credible periodical vouching for it, and that 10.9 claim is going to be impossible to erase.

But with regard to your first question, neither myself nor you can speak to Tesla's motives for advertising in the manner they choose.

One would need to ask them.

 

[fiksegts]

you seem to be the minority here....

read motor trends testing guidelines so you can understand their goal, to normalize performance data across different testing conditions so that cars can be compared in similar conditions....

look at their own article on motor trend "to simulate dragstrip performance", "levels the field for multiple cars tested on a certain day that may start out cool and become blazing hot"..... "In an attempt to ensure fair comparisons between cars"

correcting numbers does not truly mean that is what the car will run in the real world, it's a best guess "estimate"....

That you don't, might not matter so much.

You're very likely in the large minority.

It's difficult to see why Motor Trend would bother doing performance testing procedures if they felt , or had undeniable evidence that no one was putting any stock into their reported results anyway.

Very many people reference what some derisively call "magazine numbers".

But this derision has never stopped the practice. Hasn't even slowed it down. There is no indication that it will. And it very likely won't.

It's been here for decades and is here to stay.

It doesn't matter that a gourmet chef considers Outback Steakhouse steaks to be junk, Outback still does a brisk business among those craving a steak.

It doesn't matter that afficionados of Mexican cuisine consider Moe's and Taco Bell to be junk. Moe's and Taco Bell are busy right now.

It matters not that you don't hold MT quarter mile results in high regard, many others aside from you, do.

That's the point that's getting past you.

That 10.9 number, that 10.9 claim is going be difficult to counter with a credible periodical vouching for it, and that 10.9 claim is going to be impossible to erase.

But with regard to your first question, neither myself nor you can speak to Tesla's motives for advertising in the manner they choose.

One would need to ask them.

 

[TIppy]

you seem to be the minority here....

read motor trends testing guidelines so you can understand their goal, to normalize performance data across different testing conditions so that cars can be compared in similar conditions....

look at their own article on motor trend "to simulate dragstrip performance", "levels the field for multiple cars tested on a certain day that may start out cool and become blazing hot"..... "In an attempt to ensure fair comparisons between cars"

correcting numbers does not truly mean that is what the car will run in the real world, it's a best guess "estimate"....

There might be some question as to whether they corrected the tesla numbers. They are trying to compensate for changes in density altitude which mostly affects naturally aspirated ice power. They don't adjust for forced induction and hybrid engines as much. It's not too much of a stretch to think that they were smart enough to know that an electric vehicle's motor power isn't affected by density altitude other than for cooling. But we don't know for sure whether they corrected or not since they are unwilling to provide any more details.
I think it's more likely that they provided a car that had the extra power that they had hoped to deliver by v1 p90d. The model p90dl is after all a 10.80 second car. There is no way this car with 450Kw was ever going to do a 10.999 1/4 mile.

 

[P85DEE]

you seem to be the minority here....

You seem to forget. I don't care so much about "here". There is more involved and there are more opinions and perspectives than those just "here".

I mentioned earlier that P90D with Ludicrous, and Tesla efforts in developing it, seem to be more revered, and seem to get more respect "outside" of "here" than either does in "here".

That's both extremely interesting and extremely sad at the same time.

But I guess it's like the old saying, and I'm going to paraphrase here: "A king sometimes gets more respect from those from a land apart from his own."

read motor trends testing guidelines so you can understand their goal, to normalize performance data across different testing conditions so that cars can be compared in similar conditions....

I have already read and in more than one occasion, Motor Trends writings in their testing procedures and the goals of the aforementioned.

However again you either forget or disregard, the averag reader of Migir Trend very likely has no idea of what even a correction factor is and why it's used.

One more time. When people are looking for a reliable reference of performance metrics to include but are not limited to quarter mile times, for various vehicles, Moror Trend is going to be a resource that many will refer to.

Like it or not.

And when they see "10.9" for the P90D with Ludicrous, that will be all that many of them will need to see.

look at their own article on motor trend "to simulate dragstrip performance", "levels the field for multiple cars tested on a certain day that may start out cool and become blazing hot"..... "In an attempt to ensure fair comparisons between cars"

correcting numbers does not truly mean that is what the car will run in the real world, it's a best guess "estimate"....

All of what you say may be true.

But at the end of the day, when someone making an inquiry into the performance capabilities of the P90D with Ludicrous does so, Motor Trend is very likely to be one of the resources from which they draw.

And Motor Trend says 10.9. Indeed Tesla said 10.9 and Motor Trend, a respected 67 year old periodical, has effectively vouched for that by publishing their 10.9 report for all to see.

Like it or not.

 

[P85DEE]

There might be some question as to whether they corrected the tesla numbers. They are trying to compensate for changes in density altitude which mostly affects naturally aspirated ice power. They don't adjust for forced induction and hybrid engines as much. It's not too much of a stretch to think that they were smart enough to know that an electric vehicle's motor power isn't affected by density altitude other than for cooling. But we don't know for sure whether they corrected or not since they are unwilling to provide any more details.
I think it's more likely that they provided a car that had the extra power that they had hoped to deliver by v1 p90d. The model p90dl is after all a 10.80 second car. There is no way this car with 450Kw was ever going to do a 10.999 1/4 mile.

Just as taking the position that "they used correction factors", calls for speculation.........so does "they provided a car that had the extra power" call for speculation.

There is no absolutely concrete evidence that either is the reason for Moror Trend's stated results.

At any rate, that 10.9, is in the books.

Just as a sporting event with a controversial call goes on the books.

It's still a win for one team and a loss for the other. And years later, sometimes even weeks or months later, the controversy and the controversial call, due out and the result is recognized.

Like it, or not.