P90D Ludicrous 0-100 mph x 3 runs

[Burt Reynolds]

Here you go, P85DEE! 60-130 mph:smile:

Tesla P90D 60-130 mph - YouTube

For those more proficient at sorting the effects of a slight downhill than me, this is same section or road wherein my car ran 0-100mph in 7.3 seconds, having just now run 7.5 seconds on a perfectly flat road. I suspect that with aerodynamic drag being the main impediment to acceleration at these higher velocities, I would surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that the grade has less of an influence on a 60-130 mph run than it would on a 0-100 mph runs, but I'll let those who are more knowledgeable than me provide edification on the matter. This run immediately followed a 1/4 mile run, and a 0-100 mph run, and I believe that the car dropped from "Ready" to "Preparing" in the midst of the run, though I admit that my vision was rather intently focused on the road, so I can't say for certain if this drop occurred in the midst of the run or as I begean decelerating.

There simply aren't any flat roads in my immediate area that are safe for a 60-130 mph run, so I apologize for the inexactness that my data points. But I figure that some data is better than no data!

 

[P85DEE]

Thanks Burt. Saw it in your other thread too.

 

[cottylowry]

If coefficient of drag is a major consideration, then shouldn't your time at 6,000 ft be better than what one could achieve at sea level?

 

[Burt Reynolds]

If coefficient of drag is a major consideration, then shouldn't your time at 6,000 ft be better than what one could achieve at sea level?

I would think so.

 

[sorka]

If coefficient of drag is a major consideration, then shouldn't your time at 6,000 ft be better than what one could achieve at sea level?

Yes, and it's true that drag decreases at higher elevations. However, ICE cars, especially NA ICE cars more than make up for the gain by losing way more horsepower.

For example, a 400 hp ICE motor only makes 330 hp in Denver(1 mile high). If the ECU knows about the altitude, it can compensate very slightly by advancing timing as the octane rating of gasoline also increases at higher altitude. Most ECUs won't do this and cars that normally require super unleaded can get away with regular in Denver.

If your car has a turbo and the ECU can detect the altitude it can increase boost to compensate. If not, you can install a boost controller and run your turbos at a higher boost to compensate.

Altitude is the EV cars friend. It gets the gain from the thinner atmosphere but has no downside in power generation(except may reduced endurance cooling). So if you have a P90D in Denver making 611 hp, you can compare to a similarly weighted car making 740 hp. i.e. The P90D is going to kill everything in town.

 

[fiksegts]

that's a lot faster than my run of 12.1..... downhill does have a decent effect on the 60-130 time, when you upload to vboxtools.com what is the % decline?

thanks for the test and data!

Here you go, P85DEE! 60-130 mph:smile:

Tesla P90D 60-130 mph - YouTube

For those more proficient at sorting the effects of a slight downhill than me, this is same section or road wherein my car ran 0-100mph in 7.3 seconds, having just now run 7.5 seconds on a perfectly flat road. I suspect that with aerodynamic drag being the main impediment to acceleration at these higher velocities, I would surmise (perhaps incorrectly) that the grade has less of an influence on a 60-130 mph run than it would on a 0-100 mph runs, but I'll let those who are more knowledgeable than me provide edification on the matter. This run immediately followed a 1/4 mile run, and a 0-100 mph run, and I believe that the car dropped from "Ready" to "Preparing" in the midst of the run, though I admit that my vision was rather intently focused on the road, so I can't say for certain if this drop occurred in the midst of the run or as I begean decelerating.

There simply aren't any flat roads in my immediate area that are safe for a 60-130 mph run, so I apologize for the inexactness that my data points. But I figure that some data is better than no data!

 

[Pete90D]

Yes, and it's true that drag decreases at higher elevations. However, ICE cars, especially NA ICE cars more than make up for the gain by losing way more horsepower.

For example, a 400 hp ICE motor only makes 330 hp in Denver(1 mile high). If the ECU knows about the altitude, it can compensate very slightly by advancing timing as the octane rating of gasoline also increases at higher altitude. Most ECUs won't do this and cars that normally require super unleaded can get away with regular in Denver.

If your car has a turbo and the ECU can detect the altitude it can increase boost to compensate. If not, you can install a boost controller and run your turbos at a higher boost to compensate.

Altitude is the EV cars friend. It gets the gain from the thinner atmosphere but has no downside in power generation(except may reduced endurance cooling). So if you have a P90D in Denver making 611 hp, you can compare to a similarly weighted car making 740 hp. i.e. The P90D is going to kill everything in town.

Have you ever compared data of an EV at altitude and at sea level? I'm curious how much it changes things

 

[fiksegts]

good data to compare is the Nissan GT-R, 60-130 time of 8.9 I got in my stock 2013... that ran 10.89 @ 125 MPH

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

 

[Burt Reynolds]

that's a lot faster than my run of 12.1..... downhill does have a decent effect on the 60-130 time, when you upload to vboxtools.com what is the % decline?

thanks for the test and data!

You are welcome! And thanks for the great conversation.

This road descends at 1.5 to 2.0 %. I am a competitive bicycle racer, and Strava (which is a website for cyclists to load their GPS verified times into a database) reports these grades which they define as "rise over run." Having ridden this road and roads parallel to it for years, and using Strava data (which is ultimately GPS data) as my reference, I know this stretch of road to be between 1.5 and 2.0%.

- - - Updated - - -

As a teaser for tomorrow's vids, my office manager is going to lend me his 2012 911 Turbo S PDK tomorrow, and I'm going to do the exact same runs that I made today, over the exact same roads, with the exact same PBox, and the exact same driver (me). I'm picking the Tesla to win 0-60 and 0-100. The Porsche is going to kill the Tesla 60-130 mph. I think that the 1/4 mile is going to be close!

 

[sorka]

Have you ever compared data of an EV at altitude and at sea level? I'm curious how much it changes things

In terms of drag or power? EV power won't decline as you go up in altitude but ICE power will.

Both EV and ICE will benefit from a drag standpoint from higher altitudes. I hope I don't confuse folks with my 740 hp number be interpreting that to mean the P90D would have that at 1 mile high. I just meant that any other ICE car will lose lots of power at that altitude giving the EV car a considerable advantage all else being equal.

 

[DoctorV8]

You are welcome! And thanks for the great conversation.

This road descends at 1.5 to 2.0 %. I am a competitive bicycle racer, and Strava (which is a website for cyclists to load their GPS verified times into a database) reports these grades which they define as "rise over run." Having ridden this road and roads parallel to it for years, and using Strava data (which is ultimately GPS data) as my reference, I know this stretch of road to be between 1.5 and 2.0%.

- - - Updated - - -

As a teaser for tomorrow's vids, my office manager is going to lend me his 2012 911 Turbo S PDK tomorrow, and I'm going to do the exact same runs that I made today, over the exact same roads, with the exact same PBox, and the exact same driver (me). I'm picking the Tesla to win 0-60 and 0-100. The Porsche is going to kill the Tesla 60-130 mph. I think that the 1/4 mile is going to be close!

Subscribing for that!!

 

[P85DEE]

Have you ever compared data of an EV at altitude and at sea level? I'm curious how much it changes things

Interesting question, and one I had myself after his post, and so I did a little digging. I found no instances of the same EV having been tested at altitude and at sea level, but I did find another interesting tidbit.

The quickest reported ET for a P85D was 11.596 @116.420 mph. It came at zMax Dragway in Concorde, NC and the track sits at a physical elevation of 631 feet.

The second quickest reported ET for a P85D, 11.599 @115.340 mph, came at Bandimere Speedway in Colorado. It sits at a physical elevation of 5,814 feet.

The third quickest P85D time reported, 11.601 @115.78, is from Moroso in Florida. That track sits at a physical elevation of just 21ft.

The quickest thus far reported ET for the P90D Ludicrous, is 11.384 @115.890 mph at Rockfalls Raceway in Eau Claire, Wisconsin which sits at a physical elevation of 838 feet.

 

[ERP]

If coefficient of drag is a major consideration, then shouldn't your time at 6,000 ft be better than what one could achieve at sea level?

This statement seems obvious, but I fear there is more going on behind the scenes in the software. After my experience at the drag strip, I am speculating that the software is programmed to target a certain level of acceleration, not a specific power output. In most cases, power is the limiting factor, but at high altitude things might be different.

Interesting question, and one I had myself after his post, and so I did a little digging.

The second quickest reported ET for a P85D, 11.599 @115.340 mph, came at Bandimere Speedway in Colorado. It sits at a physical elevation of 5,814 feet.

This was my P85D which I ran last month. I was expecting the thinner altitude to give me a noticeable bump in trap speed. But despite the calculated altitude density of 8,500 ft that day, my P85D performed almost identically to others at much lower altitudes. I was at 90% SOC and ran four runs, all had near identical times and speeds.

The atmospheric pressure where I live is 11.4 psi, as compared to 14.7 psi at sea level. The affect on the ICE cars at the drag strip was very noticeable. They suffer greatly from the thinner oxygen supply. The fast stock cars (Hellcats, GTOs, Corvettes, 5.0 Mustangs etc) were all running mid 12's-14's. The altitude handicap adds 1-2 seconds to those cars. It was so easy to beat them in the P85D that I felt a bit sorry for them.

Side note: With autopilot about to be released, Tesla should spend some time programming "Drag Strip Run" into the software. The car is capable of doing a complete 1/4 mile run on its own. The driver would stage the car and select "Drag Race". The camera would watch the tree and launch the car exactly when it turns green, then use autopilot to stay in the lane, and brake after a 1/4 mile. The launch time would need to be manually adjustable so you can bump it a few microseconds to achieve a reaction time of 0.001 sec. It would be funny to have both hands sticking out the pano roof as the car drives itself down the drag strip.

 

[P85DEE]

This statement seems obvious, but I fear there is more going on behind the scenes in the software. After my experience at the drag strip, I am speculating that the software is programmed to target a certain level of acceleration, not a specific power output. In most cases, power is the limiting factor, but at high altitude things might be different.




This was my P85D which I ran last month. I was expecting the thinner altitude to give me a noticeable bump in trap speed. But despite the calculated altitude density of 8,500 ft that day, my P85D performed almost identically to others at much lower altitudes. I was at 90% SOC and ran four runs, all had near identical times and speeds.

The atmospheric pressure where I live is 11.4 psi, as compared to 14.7 psi at sea level. The affect on the ICE cars at the drag strip was very noticeable. They suffer greatly from the thinner oxygen supply. The fast stock cars (Hellcats, GTOs, Corvettes, 5.0 Mustangs etc) were all running mid 12's-14's. The altitude handicap adds 1-2 seconds to those cars. It was so easy to beat them in the P85D that I felt a bit sorry for them.

Side note: With autopilot about to be released, Tesla should spend some time programming "Drag Strip Run" into the software. The car is capable of doing a complete 1/4 mile run on its own. The driver would stage the car and select "Drag Race". The camera would watch the tree and launch the car exactly when it turns green, then use autopilot to stay in the lane, and brake after a 1/4 mile. The launch time would need to be manually adjustable so you can bump it a few microseconds to achieve a reaction time of 0.001 sec. It would be funny to have both hands sticking out the pano roof as the car drives itself down the drag strip.

Now that would be something.

But yes, in reviewing the data available right now, it does not seem that physical altitude or density altitude make much difference in the obtained quarter mile times in the P85D at least.

I'm thinking other things such as wheel and tire combinations and air ride height selection in cars so equipped, may play a small role here as well.

Recall reading that the 21in wheels are heavier than the 19s, (makes sense, as there is more metal) and if true, that would amount to more rotating mass.

 

[Burt Reynolds]

This is my pal's 2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S with PDK driven by me on the exact same stretch of road where I recently ran my Tesla 0-100 mph.

2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S. PDK. 0-100 mph - YouTube

 

[fiksegts]

that's using launch control? should be quicker...

This is my pal's 2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S with PDK driven by me on the exact same stretch of road where I recently ran my Tesla 0-100 mph.

2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S. PDK. 0-100 mph - YouTube

- - - Updated - - -

5.9 in the McLaren...

 

[Burt Reynolds]

The 911 would not hook up. I made sure the tires were nice and hot, used launch control, and let the pdk do the rest. It spins horribly in first,instantly upshifts to second and spins some more, until it finally shifts into third and bogs slightly. It was stunningly inefficient off the line.

 

[fiksegts]

maybe old tires? I've driven the turbo S PDK and it was a monster off the line....

The 911 would not hook up. I made sure the tires were nice and hot, used launch control, and let the pdk do the rest. It spins horribly in first,instantly upshifts to second and spins some more, until it finally shifts into third and bogs slightly. It was stunningly inefficient off the line.

 

[padapada]

Launch in 2nd gear?

 

[Burt Reynolds]

Tires are reported to be new by the owner, but old rubber was my first thought as well. Maybe they are "new tires" that have been sitting on the shelf for 2 years at the tire shop! I wonder if it will engage it's LC programming in 2nd gear? Seems like a good idea given the absurd wheel spin.