Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

P90D Ludicrous 0-100 mph x 3 runs

Burt Reynolds

Member
Oct 9, 2015
37
0
Albuquerque, NM
All runs performed in Ludicrous mode at Max Battery setting. Battery at 90% for the first run. Due to evening traffic considerations, these runs were all performed in the same direction and were slightly downhill. Uphill runs will be performed tomorrow. Racelogic performance box with external antenna used to record the times. Sorry about the poor contrast in the vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFuWWKVtMnY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11QS9eiEKMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN43xgkCkjk
 

Pete90D

Fan of Red Lights
Jul 25, 2015
478
4
Bay Area, CA
Nice! You made it into the 2.7s range (since Pbox rounds up on the screen)

- - - Updated - - -

Can you see what 1/4 mile time you get with the pbox? You're 0-100 is at least 0.3s lower than the one from DragTimes, but the best was 0.7s better.
 

Cyclone

Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
Jan 12, 2015
5,056
1,141
Charlotte, NC
Sweet ride
o-BURT-REYNOLDS-facebook.jpg
 

sillydriver

Member
Oct 19, 2014
804
557
Middleburg, va
... sigh of relief ... now this is more like it. Subtracting, the 60 - 100 times in the three runs are 4.4, 4.6, and 4.2, so a 4.4 average. If you look at Car and Driver's Sep 13 comparison between the Audi RS7, BMW M6 Gran Coupe, and Mercedes CLS63 AMG S-model (a good proxy for 'the enemy') their 60 - 100 times are 4.4, 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, so it's a tie. Their lb/hp, dividing weight by HP from the article, are 7.95, 7.96, and 7.64, a 7.85 average. Car and Driver's weight for a P85D from the June 15 issue (hoping they measure weights in their articles consistently) is 5010 lbs. Dividing 5010 / 7.85, the P90D's implied HP, executing a 60 - 100 passing maneuver, is 638. Obviously not exactly the numbers Tesla's motors are producing, since driveline losses are different, etc. But 638 is the P90D HP on a comparable basis when passing. Hopefully more is to come through software.
 

sillydriver

Member
Oct 19, 2014
804
557
Middleburg, va
... sigh of relief ... now this is more like it. Subtracting, the 60 - 100 times in the three runs are 4.4, 4.6, and 4.2, so a 4.4 average. If you look at Car and Driver's Sep 13 comparison between the Audi RS7, BMW M6 Gran Coupe, and Mercedes CLS63 AMG S-model (a good proxy for 'the enemy') their 60 - 100 times are 4.4, 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, so it's a tie. Their lb/hp, dividing weight by HP from the article, are 7.95, 7.96, and 7.64, a 7.85 average. Car and Driver's weight for a P85D from the June 15 issue (hoping they measure weights in their articles consistently) is 5010 lbs. Dividing 5010 / 7.85, the P90D's implied HP, executing a 60 - 100 passing maneuver, is 638. Obviously not exactly the numbers Tesla's motors are producing, since driveline losses are different, etc. But 638 is the P90D HP on a comparable basis when passing. Hopefully more is to come through software.

:redface: I take it back. 5.4 uphill vs. 4.4 average the other way, so net 4.9. Not so good against 'the enemy' after all.
 

fiksegts

Active Member
Jan 6, 2013
1,281
1,185
Miami
great numbers any 1/4 mile trap speed runs? 0-100 in 7.0 is awesome, but how much down hill is the question to really be legit....

0-100 in 7.0 could be VERY close to a 10.9 run IF the car doesn't back off the power and continues pulling on the top end...

for example, my Nissan GT-R ran:10.87 @ 125 MPH, the 1/8 mile was 6.9 @ 99 MPH.... and the 60' time in the GT-R was right where the P90D is hitting, 1.62....

so up to the 1/8 mile, the numbers are right in line, P90DL vs Nissan GT-R

Stock 2013 Nissan GT-R 1/4 mile Drag Racing timeslip specs 0-60 - DragTimes.com

so the P90DL will need to be trapping in the 122+ MPH range to hit 10's...
 

Burt Reynolds

Member
Oct 9, 2015
37
0
Albuquerque, NM
In the midst of the second of the two 0-100 mph runs today, which were separated by the amount of time necessary to complete a U-turn, the display beneath the "Ludicrous" setting went from "Ready" to "Preparing," and the car precipitously felt discernibly less robust. This occurred on the uphill run at about 50 mph. 50 mph to 100 mph seemed to take forever.

This had been the 4th run of the morning, I'd performed two back-to-back quarter mile times (one of the two not posted due to horrible glare), spent a few moments adjusting my improvised VBox/iPhone data recording system, and then performed the back-to-back 0-100 mph runs. I believe the uphill run would have been swifter had full power been sustained for the entirety of the segment. I'll duplicate the run uphill tomorrow and report back.
 

Pete90D

Fan of Red Lights
Jul 25, 2015
478
4
Bay Area, CA
the display beneath the "Ludicrous" setting went from "Ready" to "Preparing," and the car precipitously felt discernibly less robust.

Probably because of the battery heat and the cooling. When it starts dropping back to preparing and you're sitting quietly you should be able to hear the cooling be pretty loud.

What is the elevation where you are doing these tests?
 

3mp_kwh

Active Member
Feb 13, 2013
1,115
263
Boston
Claiming 2.7-2.8 on a downhill is about as useful as claiming 1g corning, with banking. If you cycle competitively, and work on your 1,000-1,500 watt sprints, do you notice a big difference in which way you travel up/down a 2% grade?

I don't know if there's a convention for how much tail winds and down grades help, but I'm afraid these results currently lack an important control.
 

Burt Reynolds

Member
Oct 9, 2015
37
0
Albuquerque, NM
Claiming 2.7-2.8 on a downhill is about as useful as claiming 1g corning, with banking. If you cycle competitively, and work on your 1,000-1,500 watt sprints, do you notice a big difference in which way you travel up/down a 2% grade?

I don't know if there's a convention for how much tail winds and down grades help, but I'm afraid these results currently lack an important control.


I'm pretty sure that running the exact same segment of road in the opposite direction represents the control in this study. You will note that it was 3.0 seconds.
 
Last edited:

sorka

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
7,680
5,697
Merced, CA
I'm pretty sure that running the exact same segment of road in the opposite direction represents the control in this study. You will note that it was 3.0 seconds.

Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.
 

Burt Reynolds

Member
Oct 9, 2015
37
0
Albuquerque, NM
Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.

That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

Tesla Model S P90D 0-100 mph - YouTube
 

sorka

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2015
7,680
5,697
Merced, CA
That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

Tesla Model S P90D 0-100 mph - YouTube

Totally. I never thought for an instant you were misrepresenting the data. We all appreciate your time and willingness take these measurements :)
 

Cyclone

Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
Jan 12, 2015
5,056
1,141
Charlotte, NC
Just keep in mind that averaging both directions only works on nearly flat and with little wind. If you're a 2% grade, averaging up and down hill runs doesn't necessarily get you the same thing you would have had on flat ground due to non linear efficiency characteristics.
That totally makes sense. Thanks for being constructive with your valid criticism of the runs that I've posted. I certainly have no intent to "pad" the numbers or skew the data, it's simply that the safest roads in my area happen to have a gradient.

I just completed this run on a perfectly flat, albeit somewhat less safe road.

Tesla Model S P90D 0-100 mph - YouTube
Totally. I never thought for an instant you were misrepresenting the data. We all appreciate your time and willingness take these measurements :)

And this folks is how you can state a criticism of somebody's statement without being mean, offensive, or getting thrown to Snippiness. :)
 

P85DEE

Active Member
Oct 10, 2015
1,512
372
TMC
And this folks is how you can state a criticism of somebody's statement without being mean, offensive, or getting thrown to Snippiness. :)

Indeed.

And again keeping along that same approach, and hoping to offend no one as I am grateful to Burt for his efforts too.

The first post of the thread, he is going downhill and his 0-100 results are:

7.3 seconds
7.4 seconds
7.0 seconds

The 7 flat was cause for optimism that the car was capable of a 10.9 second quarter mile.

He then made two more runs. and posted YouTube vids for those. One uphill at 8.4 seconds, the other downhill at 7.3 seconds.

His latest run, and on a flat road, also seen on YouTube, is 0-60 at 2.9 seconds, and a 0-100 time of 7.5 seconds.

Bear in mind, that in order to have any chance of dropping into the 10s, say 10.9, on a drag strip, in most any street legal vehicle, at least any street legal passenger vehicle that I can think of, save possibly for some of these sport bikes, 100mph will need to be reached in 7 seconds flat or less, .....unless the car has some serious, and I mean serious, top end.

A 10.9xx second quarter mile time slip, will typically show about 99-100mph at 6.9xx -7.0xx seconds, and at the 1/8 mile or 660ft point. The halfway point. This is the speed measured on the drag strip, and this speed will be measured in a zone which starts 66 feet before 1/8 mile is reached. Or, it will show a time slightly over 7 seconds, say 7.1xx-7.2xx seconds, but at a higher speed, say 101-102, 103 mph. But a 10.9xx second time slip typically does not show a speed of 100mph flat, which doesn't come until 7.5 seconds into the run. That would only leave 3.4 seconds to complete the distance of 1/4 mile.

Knowing that, I don't see any possible way, if Burt's run was made on a flat surface, for the P90D Ludicrous to be a 10.9 second car in it's current state. I hope to offend no one with this comment, and it is only the opinion of a Tesla owner with a drag racing background in ICE vehicles.

Bottom line, with the data that we have, I don't think we're looking at a 10 second car just yet. But rather I think that we are looking at an 11.3xx-11.4xx car, and at about 117-118mph, which is what we have actually seen to this point.

The supposed improved highway passing power over the preceding P85D, I don't know just yet and would like to see the 60-130mph Vbox results for the P85D compared agains the same for the P90D Ludicrous.
 
Last edited:

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top