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

[P85DEE]

It makes very little difference. Thimel's 1/4 mile run of 11.73 (P85DL) was 115.30 MPH at the 1330 mark. Averaged over the last 66 feet, it was 114.67 MPH.

That's a 0.63 MPH difference 121 MPH is not remotely achievable under either standard unless you have a strong tail wind or have a ringer.

When you commented on this earlier, I meant to ask you about it further.

I can find no instance of a time slip from a P85D with Ludicrous from Thimel which reads 11.73 @115.30 mph.

I see his thread.
Performance of P85D with Ludicrous upgrade review

And in the thread he seems to have set his GPS unit to document "trap speed" for his table. His graphs show the terminal velocity at 1320ft vs the "trap speed" for his unit.

His best result from his Racelogic unit on the road which he did his testing, was 11.406 @116.013 mph for the trap speed, and the terminal velocity recorded at 1320 is listed as 116.762 mph in the accompanying graph.

But I've found no time slip for 11.73 @115.30.

Can you point to a link to this time slip?

Also I didn't ask earlier but I was wondering how by looking at the time slip, you calculated how much time it took him to travel the 66ft through the traps.

I'll await your link up on the time slip though as I follow the results of the Ludicrous cars.

Thanks

 

[P85DEE]

Has anyone seen anything remotely close to 121 with a vbox or pbox?
....

The fastest that I can find, and said to have been done on a level road, is 119.1 mph recorded on a Racelogic.

Looks to be around 3mph faster than what Thimel obtained when he tested his P85DL using the Racelogic

 

[sorka]

Thanks.

I feel good that as more examples make it to the track that eventually we will see that deficit cut.

Another .06 seconds improvement over the current best means an 11.0.

Yes, after a 100+ examples, eventually the one with enough tail wind will cut the time. That doesn't make it count though.

 

[sorka]

Can you point to a link to this time slip?

It's from a DBN file that he mailed me directly. I was using it to demonstrate that there's very little difference between the two trap speed measurement methods.

 

[P85DEE]

Yes, after a 100+ examples, eventually the one with enough tail wind will cut the time. That doesn't make it count though.

I'm not sure how many more examples or attempts it will take.

But I think that as far as actual time slip submissions go, we are at around 6 individuals who have submitted an actual time slip from an IHRA or NHRA dragstrip into a database.

But back to my original request regarding the time slip for Thimel showing the 11.73 @115.30 and your calculations from the time slip as to how long it took him to cross the last 66 ft through the traps

Can you post up a link to the time slip?

Thanks

 

[sorka]

I'm not sure how many more examples or attempts it will take.

But back to my original request regarding the time slip for Thimel showing the 11.73 @115.30 and your calculations from the time slip as to how long it took him to cross the last 66 ft through the traps

Can you post up a link to the time slip?

Thanks

It's not a timeslip. It's a DBN file.

 

[P85DEE]

It's from a DBN file that he mailed me directly. I was using it to demonstrate that there's very little difference between the two trap speed measurement methods.

I see. So the 11.73@ 115.30, isn't from a drag strip time slip which would have measured trap speed using timing beams 66ft apart.

With regard to the differences between trap speed times measured on the Racelogic, did you see the 119.1 result on the video posted above and said to have been done on a flat road?

Take a look at it if you haven't.

If that figure is terminal velocity at 1320' or if it is a simulated trap speed allowing for the 66ft, it is around 3 mph or so above what Thimel got.

Do you have any theories as to why such a wide discrepancy between Thimel's Racelogic results of 115.30 mph which you referenced above vs the Racelogic results of 119.1 in the above video?

Thanks

 

[sorka]

I see. So the 11.73@ 115.30, isn't from a drag strip time slip which would have measured trap speed using timing beams 66ft apart.

With regard to the differences between trap speed times measured on the Racelogic, did you see the 119.1 result on the video posted above and said to have been done on a flat road?

Take a look at it if you haven't.

If that figure is terminal velocity at 1320' or if it is a simulated trap speed allowing for the 66ft, it is around 3 mph or so above what Thimel got.

Do you have any theories as to why such a wide discrepancy between Thimel's Racelogic results of 115.30 mph which you referenced above vs the Racelogic results of 119.1 in the above video?

Thanks

I'm pretty sure his battery SOC was in the 60s. I measured the speed at the 1320 mark and the time it took to pass through the last 66 feet.

 

[P85DEE]

Yes, after a 100+ examples, eventually the one with enough tail wind will cut the time. That doesn't make it count though.

Wow. Seems from this remark, that even should someone run the 10.9, we're already gearing up and taking a pre emptive approach to dispute it.

I guess there really is some truth to the old adage and I'm paraphrasing. "a king gets more respect in another land, than he does in his own."

Truly among other car forums I frequent, the P90D with Ludicrous, gets more respect in them, than it does in here.

I'm pretty sure his battery SOC was in the 60s. I measured the speed at the 1320 mark and the time it took to pass through the last 66 feet.

If he was only at or around a 60% SOC, I'm not seeing how it would be fair to reference his relatively low trap speed, even if to demonstrate a slight variability between Racelogic reported trap speed, and actual maximum velocity at 1320ft.

Rather I can see how referencing his 11.73 and at 115.30 mph trap speed, would paint a likely unflattering picture of what Ludicrous is capable of.

But with regard to trap speeds, the Motor Trend results, the C&D results, and the actual best track results that we have seen so far, on glance, it seems that there is a wide degree of variability in trap speeds, but a lesser degree of variability in recent ETs.

Since ET and the 10.9 scenario are at the forefront, and to me the metric primarily in question as it is one which Tesla actually represents as opposed to trap speed or any reference to it, I'll tend to focus on that as opposed to trap speeds.

That was my point.

However as an exercise, when I look at the GPS results which MT and C&D claimed for trap speeds, and in the context of the 119.1 posted up by a private owner on a flat road, while it is interesting to wonder how they got their results, it's still not a foregone conclusion that they got "ringers".

That implies wrongdoing on Tesla's part, when they had nothing to do with, and made no representation of trap speeds anywhere that I can find. I don't see how that's fair to them.

In addition, as with any conspiracy theory, one has to ask what would there be to gain, in this case, by supplying MT with a car, or cars, which could outperform those sold to the public, and outperform them in a metric, namely "trap speed" which you never referenced, marketed or used as a selling point, in any of your claims to begin with?

When all of this is looked at in the backdrop of cars currently approaching the actual claimed, showcased and marketed result of 10.9 seconds in the quarter, apparent variability in results of "trap speeds", which were never referenced, and 1320 velocities of different testers using the Racelogic, "ringers" just don't make it to the top of my list as to why the speeds reported by MT were what they were.

Finally, and again, because I don't want to harp too much on this "trap speed" matter, but you indicated that the result you got from Thimel was a DBN file.

Well again, while the trap speeds don't interest me as much as the ET as no claims were made for trap speed, it would seem to me, that in order to get a reasonable estimation as to how much discrepancy in actual drag strip trap speed measured by lights over the last 66ft on a drag strip, vs GPS indicated trap speed vs GPS indicated 1320' velocity there typically tends to be, that one would need to look over all three parameters and compare them and over a wider sample of cars than just Thimel's.

Until we know the range of variability in those numbers, it's tough to make a commitment that any "wrongdoing" such as supplying "ringers" has gone on here.

 

[sorka]

If he was only at or around a 60% SOC, I'm not seeing how it would be fair to reference his relatively low trap speed, even if to demonstrate a slight variability between Racelogic reported trap speed, and actual maximum velocity at 1320ft..

Again, it was only to demonstrate that there is very little difference between the speed at the 1320 point and the speed over the last 66 feet. I think I've said this at least twice by now.

 

[P85DEE]

Again, it was only to demonstrate that there is very little difference between the speed at the 1320 point and the speed over the last 66 feet. I think I've said this at least twice by now.

Understood.

How many examples can you point to indicating this degree of difference between the two, as well as the difference between these figures and measured trap speed on a drag strip where timing lights are used?

Since some of the discussion I've seen in here with regard to the trap speed matter, involves a comparison between what the owner's time slip says was his trap speed, vs that 121 mph figure or whatever it was, it would be interesting to see how say, 100+ GPS 1320' maximum velocity results, compare to the drag strip measured trap speeds in the same cars.

I think we would both expect the 1320' max speed numbers to be higher than the trap speeds, but my question is, "over a wider sample of cars, say 100+, just how much higher would it be?"

Do we have that information?

Thanks

 

[P85DEE]

My point is its NOT due to faulty measurement. You can't get 121+ MPH from a P90DL no matter how you measure.….

Since they're reporting 121+ MPH at the exit it can only mean they're using ICE correction factors....They either corrected for ICE or Tesla gave them a ringer

I…121 MPH is simply not possible on a P90D without it either being a ringer or having a massive tail wind.

…121 MPH is not remotely achievable under either standard unless you have a strong tail wind or have a ringer.

Well now, hold your horses. (no pun intended) "not possible", "not remotely achievable", that's pretty strong. I don’t know if I’m ready to believe that it’s “not remotely achievable” unless it’s a ringer or you have a strong tailwind.

I believe that the 121 mph figure comes from the C&D tested vehicle.
Yes, here it is:

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

First off, there is the Vbox video from forum member Burt Reynolds showing the 119.1 mph speed. I linked to it earlier

Then if you go to the drag times site, using the arrows will allow you to arrange all of the metrics in either ascending or descending order.
Fast Tesla Model-Ss 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com

Arranging the drag strip obtained trap speeds in order, we have George Dodworth at 118.95.
George also shows another time slip indicating a trap speed of 118.76 mph.

Next up is fiksgt with a trap speed of 118.58 mph.

All three of these are very close to that Vbox 119.1.

And they're doing this on a prepped drag strip with VHT on it, and possibly more rolling resistance than on an unprepared surface or a public road as was Burt's case.

So their's are actual drag strip trap speeds, measured starting 66ft from the finish line, and not Vbox speeds.

So the Vbox result of 119.1 mph we see in the video Burt posted up, seems ok, and is just 0.15 mph over the best trap speed we've seen reported on a drag strip, 0.34 mph over the second best, and 0.52 mph over the third best.

Now, how do Vbox calculated trap speeds compare with actual drag strip trap speeds?

How does a Vbox maximum speed at 1320’ compare to actual drag strip trap speeds?

I think that we agreed that it would be faster, but don’t know how much faster.

At any rate, looking at the above examples, we’re talking a difference of 2 mph or so in order for one of those three gentlemen to reach that 121 mph mark which you say above is “not remotely achievable unless you have a strong tailwind or a ringer."

I’m not quite ready to say that just yet, and here’s why:

The C&D car which has the “unattainable” 121 mph speed you're discussing in your posts above, was indicated in the article to have been a stripped down or low optioned, no sunroof model.

However, each of the three examples above were well optioned cars, and with sunroofs, including Burt Reynold’s car which the Vbox info came from. Burt's 119.1 Vbox reading, puts him just 1.9 mph off of the 121 mph mark. His thread is in here and I can link to if if need be.

So now, I’m trying to see, how it’s "simply not possible" that a lighter car, such as the one used by C&D, could end up being 2 mph faster, (actually just 1.9 mph in Burt's case) than a heavier car.

Especially when comparing some of the heavier car's authentic trap speed, to the lighter car's likely 1320' vMax.

The roughly 2 mph difference between, the C&D car and the trap speed drag strip results we have from drag times, and we've agreed that drag strip trap speeds are typically slower than 1320' vMax, could be the result of multiple different possibilities, aside from “ringers”, “correction factors” and “tailwinds”.

And based on that, it becomes even harder to holler “ringer” when looking at the few results that we have thus far.

The 121 mph speed then to me, is feasible based on what we have seen in owner driven cars.

However the 122.7 mph speed is more of a mystery and at this point, I would not even hazard a guess.

 

[NSX1992]

A few more comments for P85DEE to tear apart.

When I posted #245 that the 11.152 (rounded to the nearest one thousands) was done on 12-05-2015 I was contradicting your claim that times are improving constantly as that run was done over 5 months ago but only now reported.

The MT Tesla was reported to weigh only 4,689 pounds and the C & D Tesla 4,842 well below the actual weight. Sounds to me a little suspicious.

The Motor Week 12.4 sec run was done with a very low % battery charge. If you look at the video you can see at the start of the drag 70 miles of range left. So that should explain the slow time.

I can not find any more reference by Tesla to a 10.9 quarter time either on the order page or shopping for P90D Ludicrous for $10,000. If so I hope our complaints for truthfulness helped. Also I wonder why the 0-60 shows 2.8 instead of MT 2.6.

While only 6 or so have reported their times on Drag Times I wonder how many have not because they were slower than the posted times. I George Schultz only post when I better my previous times.

My P85DL is about .1 sec slower than the P90DL but I have the best 60' at 1.570. From my 7 trips to 2 dragstrips I have found out that slip start and battery charge between 87% to 92% yields the best times. My best 1/4 is 11.326 @ 114.48 and 1/8 7.082 @ 96.52. I may even travel to another 1/4 mile dragstrip 150 miles away that is more level to try for a better time but I will never see a 10.900 plus .1.

Reading Motor Trends testing procedure they try to use Ontario Speedway but will use a local dragstrip if they must. The reason they don't like the dragstrips is because they use the sticky compound for a better grip. So their 10.9 is even more amazing because my tracks use the compound but my times are no where close to 10.900 plus .1.

@P85DEE
Since you are the expert dragger have you gone to the drags yourself with your P85DL to see how close you can come to the 10.9 plus .1?

 

[P85DEE]

A few more comments for P85DEE to tear apart.

When I posted #245 that the 11.152 (rounded to the nearest one thousands) was done on 12-05-2015 I was contradicting your claim that times are improving constantly as that run was done over 5 months ago but only now reported.

The MT Tesla was reported to weigh only 4,689 pounds and the C & D Tesla 4,842 well below the actual weight. Sounds to me a little suspicious.

The Motor Week 12.4 sec run was done with a very low % battery charge. If you look at the video you can see at the start of the drag 70 miles of range left. So that should explain the slow time.

I can not find any more reference by Tesla to a 10.9 quarter time either on the order page or shopping for P90D Ludicrous for $10,000. If so I hope our complaints for truthfulness helped. Also I wonder why the 0-60 shows 2.8 instead of MT 2.6.

While only 6 or so have reported their times on Drag Times I wonder how many have not because they were slower than the posted times. I George Schultz only post when I better my previous times.

My P85DL is about .1 sec slower than the P90DL but I have the best 60' at 1.570. From my 7 trips to 2 dragstrips I have found out that slip start and battery charge between 87% to 92% yields the best times. My best 1/4 is 11.326 @ 114.48 and 1/8 7.082 @ 96.52. I may even travel to another 1/4 mile dragstrip that is more level to try for a better time but I will never see a 10.900 plus .1.

Reading Motor Trends testing procedure they try to use Ontario Speedway but will use a local dragstrip if they must. The reason they don't like the dragstrips is because they use the sticky compound for a better grip. So their 10.9 is even more amazing because my tracks use the compound but my times are no where close to 10.900 plus .1.

@P85DEE
Since you are the expert dragger have you gone to the drags yourself with your P85DL to see how close you can come to the 10.9 plus .1?

I wouldn't call myself an expert, and with the rain each weekend in my area since my car was upgraded to Ludicrous about a month ago, I've not had a chance to put it on a drag strip.

However even if dry, with the logistics involved in running it on or near a full charge, I don't know that I will anytime soon, as I cannot make it to the closest drag strip to me with anything more than about a 60% or so state of charge left and that's if I were lucky, with no nearby options to charge it to an optimum SOC in any reasonable amount of time. And in my mind, it's pointless to run it on a drag strip at that level of charge.

I have a trailer, but the combined weight of my trailer PLUS this near 2.5 ton car, exceeds the payload and towing capacity of my truck, So the option of charging it fully at home and trailering it to and from the track, is not a very viable option either.

In light of the situation above, and I believe that I pointed this out earlier, I believe that not only mine, but a lot of these cars simply will not make it onto a racing surface at a high enough state of charge to make it worth it, or to take a serious stab at records.

I also pointed out that this is beyond a doubt, a good part of the reason why we have seen so few people, as I mentioned earlier, I count about 6, even posting up time slips.

However I am comfortable handling things on the street when need be. And since Ludicrous, I've never "lost".

But I do envy those who can put their cars on the track with anything above a 95% state of charge and who can make a legitimate run on a quick time, and thus I follow their results. But it's looking bleak for me.

With regard to the reported times and them "improving", I'm speaking from the standpoint of when they were reported more so than when they were accomplished.

The reference to the 10.9 remains on Tesla's site in the studio when you go to build and price a P90D.

I don't think Tesla has ever promised 10.9 for upgraders like us with P85Ds.

 

[NSX1992]

You are right as I missed the order itself. If I were you I would trailer it anyways as I am a risk taker. I know Tesla never promised a 10.9 for me as they clearly state that the ludicrous upgrade will not equal the P90DL.

 

[bhzmark]

"Normal 3000lbs car" does not apply here. I did a simulation. It takes 200 lbs to get 0.1s around 11.00, Assuming the car was already 4950+150lbs driver.

What did yout use for your "simulation"? Simulations that come to you in a dream don't apply here. Ideas based on evidence and data and reasonably extrapolating and inferring from similar data do apply here.

A somewhat lighter car 3200 lbs running similar times saved .15 with only 47 pounds.
Tesla is 4900.

What simulation shows you need 200 pounds to save .1?

Even if those "simulation" numbers are correct. Pana roof alone is 150 pounds, plus probably 50 each for dual charger and uhf and there's at least .1. What is the point in arguing against basic 4th grade physics? Of course heavier optioned car would be a little slower.

 

[AWDtsla]

What did yout use for your "simulation"? Simulations that come to you in a dream don't apply here. Ideas based on evidence and data and reasonably extrapolating and inferring from similar data do apply here.

A somewhat lighter car 3200 lbs running similar times saved .15 with only 47 pounds.
Tesla is 4900.

What simulation shows you need 200 pounds to save .1?

Even if those "simulation" numbers are correct. Pana roof alone is 150 pounds, plus probably 50 each for dual charger and uhf and there's at least .1. What is the point in arguing against basic 4th grade physics? Of course heavier optioned car would be a little slower.

It only makes sense as both the mass of a vehicle and the total energy imparted to it in order to propel it to a certain speed grows, that absolute values of mass would have diminishing changes to the final speed given energy stays equal.


...and I used all the physics we know about to do the simulation. I wanted to know if 10.9 was feasible given the battery power available. I might make it public if I clean it up a little. At least feed it the power profile from the CAN logger folks.

 

[bhzmark]

It only makes sense as both the mass of a vehicle and the total energy imparted to it in order to propel it to a certain speed grows, that absolute values of mass would have diminishing changes to the final speed given energy stays equal.


...and I used all the physics we know about to do the simulation. I wanted to know if 10.9 was feasible given the battery power available. I might make it public if I clean it up a little. At least feed it the power profile from the CAN logger folks.

And so the simulation shows that a pano roof and dual charger and uhf and power hatch and SAS (together >200 lbs) yield a >.1 increase in 1/4 time? That sounds reasonable and was simply the point I made earlier.

With SAS and all the other option weight I wld not be surprised if that weight was >300 lbs and resulted in >.2 seconds . And thus a barebones 10.9 compared to a fully optioned 11.1.

 

[P85DEE]

You are right as I missed the order itself. If I were you I would trailer it anyways as I am a risk taker. I know Tesla never promised a 10.9 for me as they clearly state that the ludicrous upgrade will not equal the P90DL.

I still might. But it will require some thought NSX1992.

I trailered my Vettes, which were comparatively light weight and strapped them down using the frame holes.

However with the air ride in the Tesla, I don't feel comfortable doing that as that method loads the suspension. So it will have to be strapped by the wheels and I don't have wheel straps. Never have.

My kids are at that age when they don't seem to have time for dad, so getting it on and off the trailer and strapping it down is probably going to be a one man job.

But yeah, that 10.9 spec is still up and I believe that it may still be up for the Ludicrous upgrade available for P90D owners too.

 

[P85DEE]

And so the simulation shows that a pano roof and dual charger and uhf and power hatch and SAS (together >200 lbs) yield a >.1 increase in 1/4 time? That sounds reasonable and was simply the point I made earlier.

With SAS and all the other option weight I wld not be surprised if that weight was more than 300 lbs and resulted in >.2 seconds . And getting to a barebones 10.9 compared to a fully optioned 11.1.

I was just going to ask if anyone had any idea as to the weight of the smart air suspension and any additional parts needed for it, and if it's known whether or not the test cars had it.

I think I may have found it. Looks like at least from this, the pano roof and hardware are 150 lbs, and the SAS 80lbs, though it wouldn't be a direct delete.

Tesla Model S Weight Distribution