Tesla should only publish 5-60 times for the Model 3

[Zoomit]

I wrote up my thoughts on the rolling start test that Car & Driver routinely performs and InsideEVs posted it here: http://insideevs.com/the-rolling-start-a-better-ev-performance-metric/.

If Tesla wanted to emphasize the everyday drivability and responsiveness of the Model 3, they'd only publish rolling start test (5-60mph) times and forget the 0-60 data.

 

[Brad_SC]

0-60 times should be 0-60 times. Forget these people and companies that are trying to make the water murky. What we need is transparency and enforced standards.

If someone wants to tell us what the 0-60 time is once they omit the first foot, then there should be a special test for this called the "0-60 Minus 1 Foot, Test."

HOWEVER, do not get rid of the true 0-60 test (which, for those who don't understand is measured by counting how long it takes to go from ZERO-TO-SIXTY miles per hour) and reporting. Think about it... how many times does someone measure the car's "power" by cruising at 5 MPH and flooring the accelerator until you hit 60 MPH? NEVER!!!

If someone wants to report extra information... that's fantastic, but don't take away the basics!

 

[Snow Drift]

They post 0-60 with 1 foot rollout like at the drag strip.

 

[Skotty]

So what's the point of the 1 foot rollout, other than to add an annoying variation that confuses people?

 

[Zoomit]

Um, a 0-60 with a 1 foot rollout is completely different than the rolling start test.

 

[Lonnie123]

Naw, the 0-60 has been the gold standard since time began... Theres no reason to change it, and doing so only draws suspicious as to why they changed it ("couldn't handle the real 0-60, I guess, huh??").

Plus, because of their instant torque electric motor they actually have the advantage from a dead start compared to ICE vehicles, better to keep it at zero honestly.

 

[Zoomit]

how many times does someone measure the car's "power" by cruising at 5 MPH and flooring the accelerator until you hit 60 MPH?

I appears you have missed the point, which is not to measure power.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus, because of their instant torque electric motor they actually have the advantage from a dead start compared to ICE vehicles, better to keep it at zero honestly.

Not true. See linked article.

 

[Brad_SC]

There is no point in debating this.

Seriously, would you say, "Oh, I'll just work an extra week for free this year." No, you wouldn't, because that's preposterous!

Telling us that the car's 0-60 time is "X" when it is actually "X+1" is a scam!

Lets just keep things crystal clear.

Anyone who asks for the 0-60 to include a 1 foot roll-out, or a 5 MPH start time instead of a 0 MPH start time is an enabler of all things murky. Do you also want your water company to lie to you about the chemicals and mineral compounds they are putting in your drinking water?

 

[S'toon]

If they're going to go with a metric nobody has heard of, and nobody uses, they might as well not post any metric at all.

 

[Brad_SC]

I appears you have missed the point, which is not to measure power.

OK, so I reviewed your article now, and understand the purpose of the 5-60 MPH test now. I can see the merit behind it. But until it becomes a commonly reported metric, there will be no ability for us to compare one car to another in this way. However, I would love to see this added as a second metric on all cars' spec-sheets.

 

[Twiglett]

OK, so I reviewed your article now, and understand the purpose of the 5-60 MPH test now. I can see the merit behind it. But until it becomes a commonly reported metric, there will be no ability for us to compare one car to another in this way. However, I would love to see this added as a second metric on all cars' spec-sheets.

Its a great article that several folks didn't read before posting :wink:
It also explains why so many "slower" EV's feel so much more responsive - its because 0-60 times only apply when you are already stopped at a light!

 

[gregincal]

Its a great article that several folks didn't read before posting :wink:
It also explains why so many "slower" EV's feel so much more responsive - its because 0-60 times only apply when you are already stopped at a light!

Actually, that's not the reason. Starting from zero is perfectly fine. It's that 0-60 ICE times are totally unrealistic because they use launch techniques of revving the engine up before launching that nobody outside of racing does in real life. If all 0-60 times were just measured sitting at idle and punching the accelerator you'd get completely different results (basically closer to the 5-60 times). One thing I don't understand from the article is that for an EV I would expect the 5-60 time to always be faster than the 0-60 time.

 

[doofenshmirtz]

If they're going to go with a metric nobody has heard of, and nobody uses, they might as well not post any metric at all.

Like 'cash flow from core operations'? [emoji6]

 

[cwerdna]

But until it becomes a commonly reported metric, there will be no ability for us to compare one car to another in this way.

Yep, until all automakers and all car publications also publish it (and also exclude 0-60 times), I think that's a strange request to ask of Tesla.

 

[jkk_]

OK, so I reviewed your article now, and understand the purpose of the 5-60 MPH test now. I can see the merit behind it. But until it becomes a commonly reported metric, there will be no ability for us to compare one car to another in this way. However, I would love to see this added as a second metric on all cars' spec-sheets.

I'd say you hit the nail in the head. Someone has to go first as always and it might as well be Tesla. But, at the same time I would consider it to be crucial that they do not just report "0-60" time when they really mean "5-60" time. So reporting both specifications would be the best solution in my opinion.

And no, that does not mean that every single marketing piece should have both details - that's what "specifications" / "details" pages are for. Just don't misadvertise / lie.

 

[Brad_SC]

Yea, I'm obviously guilty of not having read the article before posting initially, I as much as said so already.

Maybe 2 new tests can be agreed upon, a "0-60 with launch control/assistance" and a "0-60 without launch control/assistance."

Just make it wicked simple. Cause, honestly... no one cares what the 5-60 is as none of us cruise at 5, then mash it until we hit 60, haha. Now that is clear and to the point!

 

[S3XY]

Yea, I'm obviously guilty of not having read the article before posting initially, I as much as said so already.

Maybe 2 new tests can be agreed upon, a "0-60 with launch control/assistance" and a "0-60 without launch control/assistance."
Just make it wicked simple. Cause, honestly... no one cares what the 5-60 is as none of us cruise at 5, then mash it until we hit 60, haha. Now that is clear and to the point!

Where I live that happens at every stop sign. :wink:

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

Like 'cash flow from core operations'? [emoji6]

This means the company is making money and all the executives and their special unreported projects burnt it all up.

Where I live that happens at every stop sign. :wink:

Should really be a rolling start to front of the line metric. Or simplified as 0-red light

 

[Zoomit]

Maybe 2 new tests can be agreed upon, a "0-60 with launch control/assistance" and a "0-60 without launch control/assistance."

The whole benefit of the 5-60 is getting away from the standing start. An ICE has a unique advantage because even "without launch control/assistance" the engine is in a higher energy state than at 5mph. There is significant kinetic energy in the form of rotational inertia from all the rotating mass. This gives an ICE vehicle an advantage from 0 that it doesn't have when in gear and creeping along at 5mph.

The first point of the article, which may have not been obvious enough, is that the 5-60 rolling start test is more representative of how the average person normally drives. It thus better captures how responsive any given car feels during normal driving, or rather during any driving other than launching from a stoplight.

The second point of the article was that BEVs perform much better in the 5-60 test relative to the 0-60 test as compared to ICE vehicles. If you only use 0-60 when comparing BEVs to ICE then you are not comparing via the best metric if you want something that represents how responsive the vehicle feels during normal driving.

Why should Tesla use the 5-60? Because marketing! They are not worried about selling ICE vehicles. They want to sell BEVs and should get us all using better metrics, especially those that emphasize the benefits of electric vehicle performance.

Will they need to publish 0-60? No, but people are slow to change, hence they'll need to scratch that itch.

 

[EcoHeliGuy]

The whole benefit of the 5-60 is getting away from the standing start. An ICE has a unique advantage because even "without launch control/assistance" the engine is in a higher energy state than at 5mph. There is significant kinetic energy in the form of rotational inertia from all the rotating mass. This gives an ICE vehicle an advantage from 0 that it doesn't have when in gear and creeping along at 5mph.

The first point of the article, which may have not been obvious enough, is that the 5-60 rolling start test is more representative of how the average person normally drives. It thus better captures how responsive any given car feels during normal driving, or rather during any driving other than launching from a stoplight.

The second point of the article was that BEVs perform much better in the 5-60 test relative to the 0-60 test as compared to ICE vehicles. If you only use 0-60 when comparing BEVs to ICE then you are not comparing via the best metric if you want something that represents how responsive the vehicle feels during normal driving.

Why should Tesla use the 5-60? Because marketing! They are not worried about selling ICE vehicles. They want to sell BEVs and should get us all using better metrics, especially those that emphasize the benefits of electric vehicle performance.

Will they need to publish 0-60? No, but people are slow to change, hence they'll need to scratch that itch.

I understand this 100% and like the idea, BUT
The media will jump all over them like when they mentioned cost of ownership.

Now what Tesla could do that would not raise flags is easy

0-60 time ****
5-60 time verified by Consumer reports ****