-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Plaid 0 to 60 and quarter mile 1.99
- Thread starter evalst2018
- Start date
1.99 is definitely with rollout, Tesla notes when it accounts for rollout on the site when looking at the specs.
I think 1.99 will be very hard to capture. Wouldn't be surprised if Plaid can barely inch Taycan.
Why would anyone bother to make "independent posts" speculating if the published 0-60 number would be with/without rollout subtracted? Was there ever anyone saying that they believed the advertised numbers for any of tesla's performance cars did not have rollout subtracted?
For as long as I can recall, Tesla has always been upfront about how they subtract rollout from the 0-60 times on their performance cars. Why would anyone think that they would stop doing that now? I guess just because the headline "tesla is probably going to continue to measure 0-60 the same way they always have" would get less clicks.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Brooks from Dragtimes did that last night during his test ride at the launch event and got a 2.7 with 3 bodies onboard. See the 9:00 mark in his video.
1.99 absolutely includes the cheater rollout. 100%.
Ruffles
Member
Roll out is not a cheat. It's been a clearly understood measurement for years.
Not only understood, but it's the industry standard for performance cars.
That must have been a very low battery or something. I got a 2.9 in my P85DL with 3 bodies (2.85 with just me) with my vbox.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I think he asked at some point during the video and they said 94%
Lots of variables and I’ll suspend judgment until they get some proper instrumented testing.
Ruffles
Member
yeah. 3 people, wheel spin, slope, etc. Someone will take it to a track and get some real runs and we'll see how it does.I think he asked at some point during the video and they said 94%
Lots of variables and I’ll suspend judgment until they get some proper instrumented testing.
Tiger
Active Member
ArabianOak
Member
makes me happy i bought a p100d instead...lolol....95% of the performance for about half the price...
They only measure the performance cars with roll out subtracted. Non-performance models do not subtract roll out. That is how they've always done it.
Why? To make the difference between performance and non-performance seem bigger than it really is. (Tesla would probably say subtracting rollout is a drag strip thing, and they only expect people to take performance car to the drag strip)
So, if wikipedia is correct, we can roughly estimate the 0-60 for the Long Range S to be 2.8 or 2.9 if the 1 foot rollout method is used. And thats without requiring any form of launch mode/battery precondition process to achieve that time.
Rollout or rollout allowance in North-American drag racing is the difference between actual acceleration time and measured acceleration time. For the published 0 to 60 mph acceleration time in North America, a rolling start is used, beginning 1 foot (0.3 m) after the initial standing start position. The method approximates the behaviour of dragstrip measurement equipment for 1/4 mile racing, which was historically limited to only recording after the vehicle had passed over a start line. This leads to a 0.2–0.3-second apparent difference, with larger wheel sizes giving a larger exaggeration in timing.
Oh, let’s disagree on that one.
The roll out was instituted for the 1/4 mile drag race where a 1 foot difference introduces an error of 1/1320. That’s an error of 0.076%. It was done to compensate for differing driver reaction times and it allows one to start the timer when the front tire clears the light beam.
The problem is that the Tesla will be traveling at 6 MPH at the end of that first foot so that roll out means you are measuring the time it takes for the car to accelerate from 6 MPH to 60 MPH, for a speed increase of 54 MPH, not 60 MPH. It’s an error of over 10%. The quarter mile has an introduced error of 0.076%. A 10% error is 132 times higher. Remember they report the time as accurate to 3 significant figures, accurate to 1/100 of a second.
So is knowingly misreporting the reduced time it takes the car to accelerate to 54 MPH as the time it takes to accelerate to 60 MPH a cheat? Damn right it is.
And if you justify it by saying “everyone does it”, “it’s the standard”, “they have to do it to compare to other cars”, that’s just crap. If the car won’t accelerate from a standstill to 60 mph in 1.99 seconds, as they say it will, then it’s a lie.
The people at Road and Track know it’s inappropriate to introduce a fixed distance error to a non fixed distance measurement. They know it is dead wrong and they do it anyway. It generates revenue. Who does it hurt? It hurts the person who spends $129,000 and finds out the car won’t even come close to what was promised.
The car is awesome. It deserves better. Rename the roll out time. Don’t call it 0-60, call it “roll out to 60”. 0-60 is absolutely defined as standstill to a speed of 60 MPH. If you say the car will do that in 1.99 seconds and you absolutely know that it won’t, you are lying.
Ruffles
Member
My understanding is that it had nothing to do with compensating for driver reaction time. It's a holdover limitation from timing equipment at dragstrips since virtually forever. You roll forward until your front tire breaks the staging beam. Wait for green, and the clock starts ticking when your tire rotates out of the beams way (~1ft). Official 0-60 times are usually taken at a drag strip because of the prepped surface makes for the best times.
I agree, the car is awesome and hella fast. For me, I don't think the rollout takes anything away from that.
I agree, the car is awesome and hella fast. For me, I don't think the rollout takes anything away from that.
I can’t vouch for the reason for the roll out being reaction time, that’s what I read so like a mindless parrot I repeated it. It seems it would have the effect of eliminating the reaction time, though, so whether or not that was the original intent is moot.
And the introduced error in the quarter mile really isn’t really the 1 foot divided by the 1320 feet. The ignored first foot isn’t an average foot of travel, it is the slowest foot of travel, so the introduced error is much larger than that 0.076%.
And about the Tesla, Tesla should be proud of the 2.29 second 0-60 time (or whatever it really is). The lie damns it with faint praise. The car cannot live up to the false number, it’ll repeatedly fail the 1.99 seconds in testing. The European testers won’t report the fake number. They’ll report the car as slower than Tesla claims. So I think it does harm the car.
All that aside, it’s just wrong. Needlessly, stupidly wrong.
And the introduced error in the quarter mile really isn’t really the 1 foot divided by the 1320 feet. The ignored first foot isn’t an average foot of travel, it is the slowest foot of travel, so the introduced error is much larger than that 0.076%.
And about the Tesla, Tesla should be proud of the 2.29 second 0-60 time (or whatever it really is). The lie damns it with faint praise. The car cannot live up to the false number, it’ll repeatedly fail the 1.99 seconds in testing. The European testers won’t report the fake number. They’ll report the car as slower than Tesla claims. So I think it does harm the car.
All that aside, it’s just wrong. Needlessly, stupidly wrong.
Similar threads
