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

[AWDtsla]

The weight of the car obviously affects performance. Small but significant weight changes yield small but significant changes in performance. Unless you don't believe in basic physics.


For a normal 3000 pound cars, 100 lbs would equal about .1 in 1/4 time For a 5000 car it will be less, but still significant. Especially pano and heavy subwoofer and amps in uhf.

See http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c6-tech-performance/2581507-1-4-mile-weight-tests.html

"I went from an 11.39 to an 11.54 after adding roughly 47 pounds, same track, same day (though it was roughly 30 minutes later in the day) and with a very similar staging technique. I had been concerned that the weight gain wouldn't be quite enough but it actually slowed me down a little bit more than I'd wanted. "

"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.

 

[P85DEE]

They ran around 20% SoC.

Exactly.

And while extreme, that brings us to the question of state of charge that some of the other cars which were being run early on when the first P90D Ludicrous cars were being run on the drag strip, and posting up 11.4 quarter mile times and worse.

The track surface also didn't appear to be in the greatest of shape,

To this day, people are still learning the sweet spot needed in terms of state of charge to obtain the best results in the Ludicrous cars. And that is a work in progress.

There is no denying that the quickest P90D with Ludicrous quarter mile time posted thus far is just .1517 seconds away from the Tesla spec.

It is unknown how long it took that gentleman to get to that point, and how much trial and error was involved before he made it to that point.

"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 you use for your simulation?

 

[sorka]

Let me make sure that I follow you.

Are you saying that a drag strip trap speed, the average speed over the last 66ft of a drag strip, should be exactly the same as the exact speed measured after a car has traveled a quarter mile of distance?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said. I said that horsepower is the biggest factor in exit speeds despite how good your launch or traction is. 121 MPH is simply not possible on a P90D without it either being a ringer or having a massive tail wind.

 

[P85DEE]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said. I said that horsepower is the biggest factor in exit speeds despite how good your launch or traction is. 121 MPH is simply not possible on a P90D without it either being a ringer or having a massive tail wind.

No one is contesting whether or not horsepower is the biggest factor in exit speeds despite how good your launch or traction is.

What metric are you referring to when you say 121 mph?

 

[sorka]

This would explain why people are not seeing 121 and 122.7 mph "trap speeds". Motor Trend and C&D weren't seeing a 121 and 122.7 mph drag strip trap speeds either, as that's not what they were measuring.

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

At any rate, the software can do 1/4 mile for either standard.

Also, mags do report the 1/4 mile MPH average over the last 66 feet even when using a vbox or pbox:

How We Test Cars and Trucks

"In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster."

 

[P85DEE]

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

At any rate, the software can do 1/4 mile for either standard.

I think that's the problem here.

You think that 121 mph represents a trap speed, sometimes referred to by drag racers as an "exit speed".

It doesn't.

 

[sorka]

I think that's the problem here.

You think that 121 mph represents a trap speed, sometimes referred to by drag racers as an "exit speed".

It doesn't.

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.

 

[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.

The trap speed measurement starts 66ft from the end of the track and ends at the finish line.

The time between tripping that first beam and the last in that 66ft box, is used to arrive at the trap speed.

Since you bring up Thimmel's time, I think it a good idea to bring up the 11.1516 time as well.

That pass was made at 116.710 mph.

In case you need the link again, it is here.
2016 Tesla Model S P90DL 1/4 Mile Drag Racing

The gentleman who made it, was just .1517 seconds away from the highest possible 10.9.

No way it would have required enough additional power to produce another 6 mph of trap speed in order for him to get that .1517 seconds of ET he needed to break into the 10.9s.

There is no proof that there were any "ringers". That gentleman matched the "average" ET of the two Car and Driver times.

The figures which you are taking for "trap speeds" or "exit speeds" in the C&D and Motor Trend results, are clearly not drag strip trap speeds.

Based on that run, 122.7 mph trap speeds, indeed nothing near that, will be required to run that 10.9 spec in this car.

One final thing. You made reference to Edmunds earlier.

This was Car and Driver and Motor Trend.

Edmunds has made it known, I believe, that they do not test their cars the same way as some of the others.

In fact, I seem to recall that they are very vocal against the use of rollout in determining 0-60 times.
Consumer Reports and Edmunds Clock Tesla P85D 0-60 in 3.5, Not 3.1 Seconds - HybridCars.com

"So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster"

Not only does Motor Trend use rollout, but from that 122.7 mph figure, it's obvious that they are also using the speed attained at the end of of a 1320 ft sprint as opposed to a trap speed.

 

[sorka]

The trap speed measurement starts 66ft from the end of the track and ends at the finish line.

The time between tripping that first beam and the last in that 66ft box, is used to arrive at the trap speed.

It was 0.392 seconds to cross the last 66 feet. 114.8 MPH which is 0.5 MPH difference. I think you would have have been happier with 0.63

 

[P85DEE]

Folks 122.7 mph isn't any trap speed. And likely neither is 121.

But more importantly it isn't any trap speed that Tesla ever claimed. Neither are.

Motor Trend says that they timed the car over 1320 feet and it took it 11.9 seconds to do it and its velocity at 1320 ft was 122.7mph.

There is no indication that the 122.7mph they are referring to is a figure arrived at by measuring the time it took for the car to travel the last 66ft of the 1320 feet.

 

[sorka]

Folks 122.7 mph isn't any trap speed. And likely neither is 121.

But more importantly it isn't any trap speed that Tesla ever claimed. Neither are.

Motor Trend says that they timed the car over 1320 feet and it took it 11.9 seconds to do it and its velocity at 1320 ft was 122.7mph.

There is no indication that the 122.7mph they are referring to is a figure arrived at by measuring the time it took for the car to travel the last 66ft of the 1320 feet.

And it wouldn't matter how they measured it. The P90DL can't get close to that no matter how you measure it. The point being is that their entire measurement is bogus, not just the trap speed.

 

[P85DEE]

It was 0.392 seconds to cross the last 66 feet. 114.8 MPH which is 0.5 MPH difference.

Did you not see what Edmunds had to say?

With regard to the 11.1516 @116.710 mph pass which is atop the list now, is it your position that it would have taken anywhere near another 6 mph of trap speed to shave off the last .1517 seconds needed to have gotten that car into the 10.9s?

 

[P85DEE]

And it wouldn't matter how they measured it. The P90DL can't get close to that no matter how you measure it. The point being is that their entire measurement is bogus, not just the trap speed.

Again, Tesla has never stated a trap speed.

Secondly which one are you going to go with????

First the car was a ringer.

Now you're telling us that the timing was bogus.

What, you're going to tell us now that it was both????

No, you're reaching. This whole rush to dismiss the possibility that this car can possibly run 10.9 has made us attach a claim of 122.7 mph "trap speed" something which was never said to have been a "trap speed" or an "exit speed" to Tesla when they never said such.

One more time though. We have a car which trapped at 116.710 mph, running 11.1516 seconds in the quarte.

A car which you implied had to have had a "tail wind". lol

If it had a "tail wind" well then why was it crawling at just 116.710 mph?

Out of the top four quickest entries for P90D Ludicrous cars on this list, he appears to be the only one who "didn't" get a tailwind.

Fast Tesla Model-Ss 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com

In fact there are two other 11.2 time slips with trap speeds higher than his.

But he had a tailwind.

That car needed to shave .1517 seconds off its ET to hit the 10.9s.

Does you believe that it would have taken enough horsepower to improve that car's trap speed by anything near 6 mph in order for it to have broken 11 seconds and made it to the 10.9s?

Some of you guys can't admit it. 10.9s just might be possible in this car.

 

[sorka]

Again, Tesla has never stated a trap speed.

Secondly which one are you going to go with????

First the car was a ringer.

Now you're telling us that the timing was bogus.

I said it was one or the other. Which one I don't know.

 

[vip gts]

So the trap speed from motor trends run would be 122 or 120 at the least.
This is the key to understanding the difference between their car and a customers.
The truth is usually so simple unless you are in denial.
Different firmware, more power, higher top speed at the quarter.

 

[P85DEE]

I said it was one or the other. Which one I don't know.

No, you said in post #287, #263, #283 either "tail winds" or "ringers".

Then at #269 you say it was "correction factors" or a ringer.

Then finally at #291 you say that their "entire measurement is bogus. Not just the trap speed."

Reaching.

Bottom line here is as I said. Some of us don't want to admit that this car just might have 10.9 in it.

The car may hit 10.9. But whether it reaches a 122.7 mph trap speed doing it is not anything Tesla ever claimed.

 

[sorka]

No, you said in post #287, #263, #283 either "tail winds" or "ringers".

Then at #269 you say it was "correction factors" or a ringer.

My point is its NOT due to faulty measurement. You can't get 121+ MPH from a P90DL no matter how you measure. You could measure it at the end of the the 1/4 mile or the average speed it takes to get through the last 66 feet and it would only change the result by less than a MPH.

The MT car was either a ringer, or they used ICE correction factors, or they had a really fast tailwind, or (add any additional reasons you like), but it isn't a 10.9 second 121+ MPH car. Period.

 

[P85DEE]

My point is its NOT due to faulty measurement. You can't get 121+ MPH from a P90DL no matter how you measure. You could measure it at the end of the the 1/4 mile or the average speed it takes to get through the last 66 feet and it would only change the result by less than a MPH.

The MT car was either a ringer, or they used ICE correction factors, or they had a really fast tailwind, or (add any additional reasons you like), but it isn't a 10.9 second 121+ MPH car. Period.

Hold on a sec.

Are you talking about Tesla's claims here or Motor Trend's claims?

Tesla never said anything about trap speed.

However they did claim 10.9 and we have an example which is just .1517 seconds off that claim and submitted times for this car are improving whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

To their credit Motor Trend never uses the words "trap speed" in their description. At least not that I saw.

But my focus is not on them and whether or not Tesla "duped" them by giving them a ringer, MT used bogus timing methods or any other conspiracy theories.

I'm waiting to see how much closer to the 10.9s this car can get than .1516 seconds. Whatever the trap speed.

You can holler "ringers" as much as you like.

But that .1517 second deficit we're looking at now, is liable to fall, or be cut, irrespective of Motor Trend's results.

 

[sorka]

But that .1517 second deficit we're looking at now, is liable to fall, or be cut, irrespective of Motor Trend's results.

Good luck with that

 

[P85DEE]

Good luck with that

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.