real world all models 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times

[P85DEE]

The P90DL is an 11.4 second car. That's what most of the timeslips show. That's what most of the examples out there get. Outliers with unusual factors and tailwinds don't count.

If you had to by a P90DL without any options that add weight and use 19" wheels to get that time, then Tesla should have qualified it with an asterisk for a specific configuration. Even then 11.0 and 10.9 have never been cracked.

I have no problem talking about what it would take to get a P90D down to 10.9999999999999 seconds with tailwinds, reducing weight, trying different tires and wheels, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that Tesla advertises a 10.9 second car which it just isn't.

While you have a point regarding the specific configuration, one can look across manufacturers and the quarter mile specs they list for their cars, and rarely if ever is a comment made or does the spec change depending on options.

You build and price some of these sports cars and sports sedans out there today, and even if your options make the car heavier, there will probably be no change in the manufacturer's stated quarter mile spec.

Probably because it's not practical, in that to truly get it accurate, cars with every possible combination of options and option packages would have to be tested and documented in order to give a consistently accurate figure.

I've heard the argument of holding Tesla to a higher standard. But even the most staunch advocate of that would have to admit that it would be tough to get a quarter mile time for cars equipped in even half of the possible available configurations along with various wheel and tire setups.

An attempt at solving that by building the heaviest optioned model that they could, testing it and using it's number as the spec wouldn't be guaranteed to work either.

What happens if in the range of customers' hands the lighter, less optioned cars aren't consistently much, if any, quicker than the reports coming in for some of the heavier ones?

Now those who bought the stripped car are pissed.

With regard to what most of the P90D time slips show, there aren't very many of them out there.

Of the few which I have seen submitted and the one which was described in here by another member, the 11.22x listed below, the top 7 and among the more recent are:

11.2955
11.2793
11.278
11.274
11.244
11.22x
11.1516

While 10.999 may or may not be forthcoming any time soon, the above leads me to believe that it is quicker than an 11.4 second car

 

[AWDtsla]

Yeah just find another ringer. No problem.

 

[sorka]

11.2955
11.2793
11.278
11.274
11.244
11.22x
11.1516

While 10.999 may or may not be forthcoming any time soon, the above leads me to believe that it is quicker than an 11.4 second car

That's a handful compared to the much larger pool of 11.4's. Also, I'm only aware of two timeslips in the 11.2s. Please post the rest. How many had stock wheels?

 

[P85DEE]

I didn't realize that you were only aware of just two 11.2 timeslips.

The results are from the same site I linked to earlier.

The time slips are shown in each description when you click on the owner's box listing his name and time

Some owners have run 11.2 more than once.

At least 3 of the 11.2s were produced the first time the owner visited the track.

The only one you won't find is the 11.22x run by a woman in a P90D with Ludicrous at a Test and Tune, and which was described in here in another post by a member running his P85D Ludicrous and witnessed by that member the day it occurred.

Also you mention a "large pool" of 11.4s

I've followed this from the first P90DL reported drag strip visit.

That car ran 11.4s and 11.5s last fall or it may have been winter.

In Wisconsin. It eventually turned an 11.38. Again in the cooler months and in Wisconsin.

I've seen a few other 11.4s, but not what I would call a large pool.

There are very few P90D Ludicrous results out there.

In fact, I know of quarter mile results from just 6-7 owners.

The 6 you'll find on that site, and the other I already alluded to.

I follow this. Almost nightly. Searching YouTube and the rest of the web for any reported drag strip results involving any of the Ludicrous equipped cars and have been doing it for months.

The early reports of 11.4, and thereabouts, came during times when optimum SOC was unknown, owner had little to no drag strip experience, winter runs.

Those 11.2s and the 11.1 are among the more recent runs.

 

[NSX1992]

You forgot that the 11.152 was actually done on 12-05-2015 in Ohio and only recently reported.

 

[bhzmark]

very reluctantly, I contribute to this discussion to share that looking back at the MT article I noticed that they took pictures of two Model Ss. The blue one clearly has the pano, but the red one does not. Hard to tell at first because there is no interior shot looking up at the headliner like in the blue one, but the dash representation of the car clearly shows a red colored roof.

I suggest that the car that MT tested out at 10.9 might have been the red one which could have been a little lighter that the most (all?) of the cars that have reported times on this forum since most people springing for the P90DL will also get the pano and UHF and dual charger etc.

Is that enough weight to make up the difference? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone eventually replicates MT's results with a P90DL that happens to be the lightest stock model and they get the SOC And battery heat settings all correct. The reason that they haven't been replicated to date, could be simply that the lightest bare bones P90DL is very rare and getting the right SOC and battery heat all dialed in at the same time for the first run is a bit like getting planets to align.

All that said, I agree that Tesla was cooler when it underpromised and overdelivered on speed stats.

 

[P85DEE]

You forgot that the 11.152 was actually done on 12-05-2015 in Ohio and only recently reported.

No, I listed it.

The actual time was 11.1516.

 

[P85DEE]

very reluctantly, I contribute to this discussion to share that looking back at the MT article I noticed that they took pictures of two Model Ss. The blue one clearly has the pano, but the red one does not. Hard to tell at first because there is no interior shot looking up at the headliner like in the blue one, but the dash representation of the car clearly shows a red colored roof.

I suggest that the car that MT tested out at 10.9 might have been the red one which could have been a little lighter that the most (all?) of the cars that have reported times on this forum since most people springing for the P90DL will also get the pano and UHF and dual charger etc.

Is that enough weight to make up the difference? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone eventually replicates MT's results with a P90DL that happens to be the lightest stock model and they get the SOC And battery heat settings all correct. The reason that they haven't been replicated to date, could be simply that the lightest bare bones P90DL is very rare and getting the right SOC and battery heat all dialed in at the same time for the first run is a bit like getting planets to align.

All that said, I agree that Tesla was cooler when it underpromised and overdelivered on speed stats.

View attachment 178527

View attachment 178526

And to expand on your point, the car which Car and Driver tested and got 11.1, which, btw, until a few days ago no other private owner had reported and yet another reason why I do not believe the car to be an 11.4 car, was said in the article to have been minimally optioned.

While 11.1 is not 10.9, their time list no hundredths or thousandths.

I would reiterate that I don't believe the car to be an 11.4 car, and the C&D case reinforces to me that just because no private owner has reported this or that time "yet", it's to early to call.

Why??? Because there was a time, not too long ago, when no one had even duplicated C&Ds time and now there is, and furthermore he appears to have done it on 19in wheels and all season tires.

In addition to this, I've seen cases involving other cars where people have beaten Car and Driver's times. Someone has already "matched" their time. And there have been several 11.2s submitted.

Yet another reason why I believe that it's to early to call.

Finally, the car which Car and Driver tested, also appears to be blue but with a black headliner (yes, I've studied this matter almost incessantly and perhaps in more detail than many).

It may not have been one of the two cars which MT received.

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

It also has no sunroof. You can go through the pictures by tapping the camera image at the top left of the first pic in the article.

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

C&D also states that they obtain their results by running in opposite directions and averaging the two runs.

"When we test, we average two acceleration runs in opposite directions to eliminate wind and grade effects"

Another often overlooked key point in this discussion.

Thus the 11.1 is the "average" of their two runs.

Thus they could have run 11.0 and 11.2 or some other combination of two runs yielding an 11.1 average.

Now I've been accused of writing books and over analyzing this matter, and admittedly I do scour the Internet and pore over each result attempting to get the real answer. But I believe that this is what it's going to take to get a reasonable answer as to if Tesla's representation of a 10.9 in the quarter was valid.

 

[AWDtsla]

So the Motortrend car has to be going downhill to get 10.9. LOL.

 

[AWDtsla]

This is a normal distribution. Basically, all sets of measurements which don't have a non-controlled influence follow this pattern. If we give Tesla the benefit of a doubt, the 10.9 should AT A MINIMUM be at u, because even then 50% of all P90D's are slower than 10.9, but we can agree 10.9 can be claimed for P90D. Now, you're claiming if we find a single car at -3 sigma, even though that makes 99.9% of P90D's slower than 10.9, that Tesla has been vindicated. Maybe the graph will explain to you why this is bull****. 10.9 should really closer to +3 sigma for owners to feel that Tesla has delivered on their promise.

The data that has been gathered from owners basically makes a claimed 1/4 of 11.4 "true", with lower values stretching the definition of "true", as explained above.

edit - I'll also add that given Tesla's drivetrain and repeatability -3 sigma to +3 sigma should probably be something like 0.2s.

 

[P85DEE]

So the Motortrend car has to be going downhill to get 10.9. LOL.

Not necessarily.

I don't read Car and Driver's explanation of how they arrive at their results as "we make one run downhill and with a tailwind, and then we make another run uphill and into a headwind."

Their process appears to be precautionary.

The C&D results were obtained presumably independent of and on a different day and at a different location than were the MT results.

C&D results appear to not have come on a drag strip.

Also, while I see the sarcasm in your post and appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone else, consider this.

The C&D car got a 121 mph trap speed.

The MT trap speed up as 122.7 mph and is looked upon with a raised eyebrow by some here.

But that 121 mph is the "average" of two runs made by C&D.

C&D car is blue with the white headliner. I believe I mis wrote in one of my above posts. My apologies.

At any rate, each tester, C&D and MT got a blue car, and they appear to be different cars.

C&D appears to have tested a blue car if it's the same car as in their article. As mentioned earlier MT appears to have tested a red car.

 

[P85DEE]

View attachment 178535

This is a normal distribution. Basically, all sets of measurements which don't have a non-controlled influence follow this pattern. If we give Tesla the benefit of a doubt, the 10.9 should AT A MINIMUM be at u, because even then 50% of all P90D's are slower than 10.9, but we can agree 10.9 can be claimed for P90D. Now, you're claiming if we find a single car at -3 sigma, even though that makes 99.9% of P90D's slower than 10.9, that Tesla has been vindicated. Maybe the graph will explain to you why this is bull****. 10.9 should really closer to +3 sigma for owners to feel that Tesla has delivered on their promise.

The data that has been gathered from owners basically makes a claimed 1/4 of 11.4 "true", with lower values stretching the definition of "true", as explained above.

edit - I'll also add that given Tesla's drivetrain and repeatability -3 sigma to +3 sigma should probably be something like 0.2s.

Impressive

Now it would be interesting to see if anyone could successfully sue for false advertising should:

1. A private owner make it to 10.999.

2. MT provides their documention in a court of law showing that they ran 10.9.

3. Tesla shows their documentation in court showing that they got 10.9 in the quarter in their testing.

My point. Once someone hits 10.999, Tesla is off the hook. Not that their even on the hook right now.

Tesla claims that the car has a capabilitiy of 10.9 seconds in the quarter.

I've seen nowhere that they say how many owners will successfully hit that.

 

[P85DEE]

For those interested, MT lists their testing procedures here

Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend

Key points in the article center around the "grade" of the testing surface, the timing equipment used, and the use of weather correction factors.

While they use them for ICE vehicles, they state the following: "It’s worth noting that the correction factor is reduced for turbocharged engines and for hybrids, because electric motors and turbochargers are not affected much by swings in barometric pressure (turbos reach a preset boost pressure regardless of intake air pressure)."

This indicates to me that in tabulating their results, that when it comes to the use of correction factors, that they have at least taken into account the Tesla's electric motors.

 

[Ames]

I think even the 'heavy' P90D's will get into the 11.1s.

Mine has dual chargers, pano roof, air suspension, UHFS, premium interior, staggered 21" wheels, a carbon spoiler and non carbon fibre interior. I weigh around 185 lbs /83 kg and all my runs were done with all my charging equipment and loose interior fittings onboard. My first run at 96% charge got me an 11.8; wet tires, open windows (noob). My 2nd with 94% charge went as planned and got me 11.2. My 3rd with 92% charge didn't have launch control engage properly so I released the brake and it launched very softly - still got 11.5. I don't see any reason why I cannot get another 11.2 and maybe even an 11.1.

So only 1 proper run and I'm already talking like I've been doing this for years .

The next time I go I will try with a higher SOC, recommended tire pressure (which would be higher than I ran originally), folded mirrors, and maybe 15-17 lbs less weight. If nothing else I hope to beat my personal best of 11.278.

 

[P85DEE]

I think even the 'heavy' P90D's will get into the 11.1s.

Mine has dual chargers, pano roof, air suspension, UHFS, premium interior, staggered 21" wheels, a carbon spoiler and non carbon fibre interior. I weigh around 185 lbs /83 kg and all my runs were done with all my charging equipment and loose interior fittings onboard. My first run at 96% charge got me an 11.8; wet tires, open windows (noob). My 2nd with 94% charge went as planned and got me 11.2. My 3rd with 92% charge didn't have launch control engage properly so I released the brake and it launched very softly - still got 11.5. I don't see any reason why I cannot get another 11.2 and maybe even an 11.1.

So only 1 proper run and I'm already talking like I've been doing this for years .

The next time I go I will try with a higher SOC, recommended tire pressure (which would be higher than I ran originally), folded mirrors, and maybe 15-17 lbs less weight. If nothing else I hope to beat my personal best of 11.278.

Good point. And good luck. I think you have a shot, and part of the reason why is because as time goes on, people are putting to use what they have learned thus far in order to get their best results. This didn't happen early on when the 11.4s were showing up and is why I'm taking a different view of this matter now.

While his car is a P85D with Ludicrous, I believe that NSX1992 has run 60ft times of 1.570 and 1.58x. This was unheard of in the initial reports coming in from the Ludicrous cars back when they were first released.

The best people were doing back then was mid to high 1.6xxx.

I don't think that there is any question that the more people running, the better the results we're seeing and that people are learning as they go along.

Also, if C&D got 11.1 as an "average" between two runs, then either they ran a pair of 11.1s, ...or one of the runs was better than 11.1 and the other was worse than 11.1.

Those are the only ways to "average" 11.1 with just two runs.

We now have a report of a private owner getting 11.1. 11.1516 to be exact.

This should retire at least some of the talk about "ringers".

Unless the position is that C&D and MT "both" somehow got ringers. But if that is the case, then how did the private owner match the C&D "average" of 11.1 for two runs?

 

[AWDtsla]

Blah blah blah blah. Show me that at least 50% of customer cars can deliver 10.9. End of story.

 

[P85DEE]

Blah blah blah blah. Show me that at least 50% of customer cars can deliver 10.9. End of story.

In order to do that, one would have to take "at least 50% of customer's cars" out of those customer's hands and have them tested under the same controls under which Tesla, and Motor Trend for that matter, did their testing and made their claims, and tabulate the results.

Not every customer, indeed perhaps not even 50% of customers, is going to get 10.9. Even if his car is capable of doing it.

That "no" customer has reported doing it "yet", is not the ace in the hole that you seem to think that it is, and there are several reason why it isn't.

I've used this analogy before. I have firearms, and golf clubs, which can give better results than I can get from them. That's not the gun's fault, it's not the golf club's fault, that's my fault. And it could be the impact of other factors which would affect my results.

 

[bhzmark]

Blah blah blah blah. Show me that at least 50% of customer cars can deliver 10.9. End of story.

Should a car mfr publish speed stats at an avg of what customers who go to the dragstrip, many for the first time, report? With heavily optioned cars? At various states of charge and battery temp?

 

[AWDtsla]

Should a car mfr publish speed stats at an avg of what customers who go to the dragstrip, many for the first time, report? With heavily optioned cars? At various states of charge and battery temp?

The options things is more bull****. Oh don't get dual chargers if you want to get a 10.9! The car weighs almost 5000 lbs. What does the charger weigh? 35lbs, max? Probably less. I'm sure next we'll hear to make sure to use a laxative before heading to the dragstrip, or you won't get 10.9. All "professional" drivers use colon-blow before their runs.

 

[P85DEE]

The options things is more bull****. Oh don't get dual chargers if you want to get a 10.9! The car weighs almost 5000 lbs. What does the charger weigh? 35lbs, max? Probably less. I'm sure next we'll hear to make sure to use a laxative before heading to the dragstrip, or you won't get 10.9. All "professional" drivers use colon-blow before their runs.

How do you account for the 11.1 quarter mile average that C&D got, and the 11.1516 quarter mile time that the private owner at Thompson Raceway got with a sunroof?

What??? They got a "ringer" and he got a tailwind???

You do realize that 11.1516 seconds, is but 0.1517 seconds off the highest "10.9" possible on a drag strip, that being 10.9999, yes?

I certainly would not wager that .1517 second deficit won't eventually be covered. In fact, I wouldn't want to wager one way or the other. It's just too soon to tell one way or the other.

Someone is going to run 11 flat guys. 11.0xx. We're at 11.15 now, so just over .05 seconds is needed to do that.

And when they do, I want to see then how many who were of the opinion that 10.9 wasn't possible, remain of that same opinion