Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by Eclectic, Jan 2, 2016.
Can someone summarize or quote highlights of the autopilot article
Still seems to do nothing, anyway. Only results so far have been under measurement error.
I seem to be getting more power at 100%, 468kw. Need more samples.
I'm not sure how much better launch mode does vs a pedal kick (and if it also affects performance beyond the launch), but the lack of pedal kick by doing a 5mph roll will still mean a measurable difference between rolling start and a 0-60mph run.
Tesla spanks the competition:
"Tesla's autopilot app lives in a class of one"
i was was also interested to see the p90d's curb weight listed as 4842lb, looks like the pano roof does add about 100lb as speculated here.
And somehow MT's car is 153 lbs lighter. I don't believe a thing. The car produces results that are too consistent for the discrepancies here. The lighter optioned heavier car is 0.2 seconds slower than the heavier optioned lighter car? wut???
Car and Driver rank Tesla Autopilot first by a wide margin. next comes BMW (750i xdrive), MB (S65 AMG), and last is Infiniti (Q50S).
C&D says Tesla is the "clear winner" "no wobbling" "beg your use in daily driving" "only car capable of hands free lane changes"
The number of interruptions on their test course: Infiniti-93, MB-58, BMW-56, Tesla-29.
Some other comments of note:
Infiniti was last by a large margin. It "lost the scent" quite a bit more than the others.
MB requires you to nudge the wheel every 12 seconds. BMW requires a light touch every 3 seconds -- effectively all the time.
MB and BMW use a stereo camera and 5 radar sensors. Infiniti uses one camera and one radar. No one else seems to use the ultrasonic sensors.
C&D's Don Sherman still shows his age by writing nonsense like "the best feature of any autonomous driving tech is an off switch"
I guess it depends.
If you measure 60 - 100 by having the car cruising at 60, and having the driver respond to some go signal, then the 60 - 100 time will include the reaction time of the driver, and also the time to spool up turbos if any, and also the small lag for the full torque of even a non-turbo engine to be delivered to the wheels, which would include opening the throttle valves, the response time of the fuel injection system, etc., and perhaps some driveline lash.
The 60 - 100 time might even be made to include the time for a cruising automatic transmission car to downshift, which would be large relative to the factors above. That in particular would slow down the 60 - 100 time relative to the subtraction I suggest. If it's measured this way, or even if it's measured the first way, then Tesla has an advantage because its measured 60 - 100 will exceed the subtraction 60 - 100 by a smaller amount than for an ICE car.
On the other hand, if you measure by cruising at, say, 57 mph, floor it and then use a Vbox or use video frame counting to measure the time from 60 to 100, I believe the measured 60 - 100 time will be (except for run-to-run variation) exactly the same as the subtraction-based 60 - 100 time. Doing it this way is effectively a velocity version of the infamous one foot rollout, because like the rollout, it absorbs reaction time, lash, etc.
Clearly, the second method, which includes automatic transmission downshift time, is the real world measure of 60 - 100 time, and on that basis there is a good case to say my subtraction is incorrect.
But there are two other points. First, I have only seen the method involving the virtual rollout used in this forum, not the real-world method. What I have seen done is people taking a video that begins with the car cruising below the starting speed, where they count the frames to measure the time from their passing through the starting speed to their reaching the target speed. On that basis the subtraction method should give the same result.
Second, the point of having good 60 - 100 acceleration is, in my opinion, the enjoyment of the way the car feels after punching it. On that basis what counts is the acceleration achieved, not the amount of time it takes to achieve that acceleration given downshifts, etc. On that basis, the result of the subtraction method (or the virtual rollout timing method) is what correlates with the rate of acceleration achieved within the speed range and thus enjoyment.
So it depends.