You can take your own advice. It was discussed ad nauseam that RC batteries are very different from the batteries used in Model S. You would go ballistic if Tesla sold you a car with similar batteries.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
You can take your own advice. It was discussed ad nauseam that RC batteries are very different from the batteries used in Model S. You would go ballistic if Tesla sold you a car with similar batteries.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Analysis of you data: at an ambient of -40C (equivalent to a whopping -40F) the battery was heating, not cooling. What are you talking about: cold weather limiting or thermal limiting?
This chart, while useful, seems a bit odd.
I'm getting consistent 3.1/3.2 second 0-60 mph times, but they should be 2.8 second times w/Ludicrous, no?
Tesla will likely claim that because we have almost every option (less the 3rd Row seating and 2nd charger), that the extra mass reduces performance. Yes, but . . . .
Is there any data on what the Pano Roof, UHFS, and PUP actually weigh and how much of an impact that has on performance?
Newton's Second Law is pretty clear: F = MA.
If mass increases by, say, 100 lbs, I just can't see how that would kill 0.3 seconds of 0-60 mph time . . . . It's a power problem at 449 kW, not a mass problem.
Am taking it in for service in February and we'll see what they say.
@TSLA Pilot the answer to your question is right there in the snap shot from Tesla website included in my post that you've quoted. The line at the very bottom states: "Model S Performance base option acceleration ratings follow Motor Trend's test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance"
The similar phrase could be found on Tesla current website as well. Here is the link for the referenced procedure.
You must be new around here.
The similar phrase could be found on Tesla current website as well. Here is the link for the referenced procedure.
You must be new around here.
The weight argument:
1. Doesn't work.
2. Tesla should not have claimed to sell you a car that did 10.9 if you added options that would make it not be able to do that. People that got stripped down cars should have handily exceeded 10.9
As if Tesla silently upgrading certain cars to be able to meet the spec wasn't admission enough, we still have people beating that dead horse.
@TSLA Pilot the answer to your question is right there in the snap shot from Tesla website included in my post that you've quoted. The line at the very bottom states: "Model S Performance base option acceleration ratings follow Motor Trend's test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance"
The similar phrase could be found on Tesla current website as well. Here is the link for the referenced procedure.
View attachment 212333
You must be new around here.
Hmm. Interesting.
Questions (for anyone):
1. Does a one-foot rollout really account for 0.3 seconds of reduced 0-60 mph performance?
2. A VBox is about $400; is there any other way to get the "corrected" 0-60 mph time so as to provide hard data to my service center? (Or is there way to set the Powertools app to collect the modified data?)
Thanks.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
@TSLA Pilot the answer to your question is right there in the snap shot from Tesla website included in my post that you've quoted. The line at the very bottom states: "Model S Performance base option acceleration ratings follow Motor Trend's test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance"
The similar phrase could be found on Tesla current website as well. Here is the link for the referenced procedure.
View attachment 212333
You must be new around here.
Yes because those of us around at the time remember that the roll out disclaimer was added post sale of the initial cars which didn't hit the original figure.
Yes, approximately 0.3 seconds does account for one-foot rollout. There were a lot of discussions about this on TMC.
Yes because those of us around at the time remember that the roll out disclaimer was added post sale of the initial cars which didn't hit the original figure.
According to @TSLA Pilot postings he bought his car after the disclaimer was already on Tesla website.
Yes because those of us around at the time remember that the roll out disclaimer was added post sale of the initial cars which didn't hit the original figure.
The 10.9 never got an asterisk, if I recall.
Last edited:
The Powertools App provides the 0-60 times, but doesn't allow for the "one foot rollout" silliness, so making an apples-to-apples comparison will be difficult.
I just wish [email protected] would respond to my queries re: the jaw-dropping performance on the cars loaned to MotorTrend and Car and Driver. Their silence speaks volumes, if you catch my drift . . . .
That's the funny thing with Tesla--the cars are great as is, so why do they have to go and create a problem by loaning "ringers" to the car magazines KNOWING FULL WELL that the cars being sold to John Q. Public don't make that same level of power?!?
That's where the problem lies, and IF that's what happened, that is not good.
I assume the P90DL "V1" age pack Tesla delivered to the magazines was tuned at an unsustainable level for the long term.
Thus P90DL "V1" eventually shipped tuned down and missing the already advertised spec. After all, at least until P100D, Tesla's policy was advertising optimistic (or allegedly inflated) numbers for their Performance specs, while downplaying their non-Performance spec, possibly to increase the separation of the two.
P90DL "V2" apparently missed the spec as well, but other than the Countergate issue, P90DL "V3" finally met the arvertised spec several months after the original launch.
I put the versions in quotation marks as they are not official Tesla nomenclature, but instead Tesla community names for the different known revisions of the 90 kWh pack.
Thus P90DL "V1" eventually shipped tuned down and missing the already advertised spec. After all, at least until P100D, Tesla's policy was advertising optimistic (or allegedly inflated) numbers for their Performance specs, while downplaying their non-Performance spec, possibly to increase the separation of the two.
P90DL "V2" apparently missed the spec as well, but other than the Countergate issue, P90DL "V3" finally met the arvertised spec several months after the original launch.
I put the versions in quotation marks as they are not official Tesla nomenclature, but instead Tesla community names for the different known revisions of the 90 kWh pack.
Bill D
Member
The most ardent performance enthusiasts that bought pre-V3 P90DLs relying on Tesla's unambiguous 10.9 ET specification are obviously the segment of owners most upset about being short-changed by Tesla.
A remedy that would uniquely focus on this segment of owners (the most ardent performance enthusiasts) would be for Tesla to offer the P100 battery upgrade at a "V2-owners discount" and an even bigger "V1-owners discount" because they were short-changed even more.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I should note that C&D got a 11.1x in a blue P90DL with no pano, while the best owner P90DL v1 with pano got a 11.22.
While there is a lot of speculation that the red P90DL Motor Trend got for their 10.9 time was ringer, I don't think it is likely for the C&D one to be a ringer given how close the numbers are and the difference in options.
Last edited:
Just do a run at <100% SoC, easy to reproduce slow times even with a ringer. Proves nothing.
Arguing in the face of clear evidence. It stopped being a question of "If you try hard enough you can get the car to do 10.9" almost a year ago. It is a trivial software change to make any car into a "ringer" as long as you don't care about pack life.
thegruf
Active Member
Not sure why people keep wishing for this.
Not going to happen. Period.
The only way Telsa will make any remedy is if they are compelled to by legal action, and in spite of the (imho entirely justified) complaints, so far it doesn't appear there is sufficient determination to follow through with legal action.
Tesla past performance can be used as an indicator for current and future performance in this instance.
This "marketing BS calculated risk" aspect of Tesla sadly but significantly diminishes the brand and the product.
Similar threads
