# Tesla S, now 2.6 secs 0-60 from the showroom !



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Latest upgrade to "Ludicrous" mode !
Fastest accelerating production 4 door sedan with a 10.9 sec 1/4 mile !
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests...l-s-p90d-ludicrous-upgrade-first-test-review/


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

"762-hp Model S "

why do they say stupid stuff like that? why should anyone keep reading if they print glaring errors like that?!? Aren't they supposed to be experts at something or something? I assume they actually get paid to write words.

Unless it isn't battery limited still, it is a crap figure, and the rest is suspect as a result. Without the volts and amps behind it, the motor power ratings are meaningless.

The 4700 lbs figure is probably a little light for example.

Unless the performance figures are BS too, I don't know why they would feel the need to lie/bend the truth. So, the performance figures ARE suspect. Still very good I'm sure, but they must be in trouble if they need to lie for attention.

somehow a software update to 2.6 0-60 is a bit hard to believe. OH, THEY USE A ROLLOUT!!! IT ISN'T FROM ZERO MPH AFTER ALL!!

Sheesh!

edit, apparently the tesla sycophants endorse the rollout because "other people are doing it", even though tesla doesn't apply it consistently across their own models.
But since they are selling to the sedan market now, you can't *really* expect it to be common knowledge among consumers. It was news to me that such US performance metrics are crap.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi dcb
Lighten up a bit
The guy writing the story is not an EV guy he did not realize that Tesla did not need to do anything to the motors to get that power
(just the power supply/batteries)
And he does mention the battery changes to get the additional power
Other than that fox paws the article is OK and the 762Hp at least as legit as power figures for any IC car

The 4689lbs is curb weight (as the article says) - sounds about right 42lbs more than the old S type
You need to add the driver and passenger weights for its operational weight


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

I'm not wild that a whole industry is built on misinformation about really basic physics.

Consumer reports did some fairly thorough p85d testing, It is a great car for sure, but the 0-60 came out at 3.5s when measured with a gps vs Teslas claim of 3.1s. That is a huge difference. 

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...-p85d-skeptical-of-p90d-ludicrous-mode-claims

And the weight has been reported at closer to 2.5 tons, and of course it is the battery that is the limiting factor, not the motors, so those numbers are misleading. It is a system, not individual components. If an ICE knowingly didn't deliver enough fuel to make the claimed HP, then they would fix that. Tesla didn't, they are making HP claims they cannot back up, literally.

Bottom line, manufacturers, including tesla, and "article writers" simply cannot be trusted, and should never be parroted. No methodology means not science, just BS spin. I call BS.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi dcb
You are taking numbers from a GPS over proper measurements????


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

If you haven't learned to live with " sales figures" and media hype by now you are going to have an early death from mental stress !
I guess you also believed that all cars passing the emissions test never spewed out any greater amounts of poison than that suggested by the test limits ?
99% of what is fed out to the public is just bait to get our attention and draw us to one specific vendors product, rather than the competition.
Even the magazines like C& D, Autocar, etc , are ultimately just trying to get attention to themselves, not the vehicles they "test" ....they are in the business of selling magazines, not cars. ( except for those sponsored by car makers !)
Treat them all like you would a "Playboy" mag,...light entertainment...with contents that are interesting but unlikely to be totally real !
If you ever actually intend to buy any car, you need to look a lot deeper than the media , you need to get in and drive to decide for yourself if it has enough power, performance, or if the interior smells nice , etc etc.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Duncan said:


> Hi dcb
> You are taking numbers from a GPS over proper measurements????


You are not looking at the link?!?

Consumer reports actually described their methodology! And you completely ignore it.

They have a very expensive gps that is good to 2cm.

Or you can go read another hype filled tesla rah rah, that sounds accurate...


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

dcb said:


> You are not looking at the link?!?
> 
> Consumer reports actually described their methodology! And you completely ignore it.
> 
> ...


I read the link. They had bigger tires than stock (by 10 percent). Of course that will slow down the 0-60!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Hollie Maea said:


> I read the link. They had bigger tires than stock (by 10 percent). Of course that will slow down the 0-60!


sigh, guess you aren't much of a car guy either. I thought your gripe was the GPS anyway?

the 21" tires are low profile, basically the same revs/mile with better cornering.

http://my.teslamotors.com/de_AT/forum/forums/19-and-21-same-car

Consumer reports says it is the best car they have ever seen FYI, they aren't trying to slant it. Which is why it is ridiculous for tesla to cook the numbers, like HP and weight (and something other than 0 to 60). It only makes them look bad.

edit, apparently tesla uses the 21" with a softer grip for testing anyway, so what are you spazzing about?!? Where did you get 10% from anyway?
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/for...ec-if-i-buy-car-19inch-will-ii-do-same-060sec


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi dcb

I have used high end very expensive GPS units - with 2cm accuracy!
They are very good at what they are designed to do
Determine the accurate position of a stationary object!
They do this partly by repeated measurement 
Which means they are NOT a good idea when trying to measure velocity in an accelerating vehicle

A GPS has to measure velocity by taking repeated measurements of position - so you have a delay built in between the car reaching 60mph and the GPS determining that it is at 60mph

When you add on the delay caused by the repeat measurements.... 
And you can't get away from that - the only way to get the sort of accuracy you mention is by taking lots of measurements and analyzing them.

There are a lot of measurement methods that are much much better than GPS if you are interested in zero to 60 numbers

As a comparator - this car is quicker than that - the GPS is OK - for actual measurements? Probably good to within a second or so


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

Duncan said:


> As a comparator - this car is quicker than that - the GPS is OK - for actual measurements? Probably good to within a second or so



I don't know all the details of their fancy device, but yah, I would lean towards a high resolution high speed laser pulses in line with the car (or a video camera/scope out the side and a really long tape measure), but I'm a cheapskate. Even a 5th wheel would be good.

It looks like they are using a vbox 3i, with a lot more sensing going on than 100hz gps, and a package cost of about $20,000.

http://www.racelogic.co.uk/_downloads/vbox/Datasheets/Data_Loggers/RLVB3iR10G10_Data.pdf

so,it is funny how you trust tesla and bring your own misinformation, and doubt consumer reports (and don't do any of your own research)


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

dcb said:


> I thought your gripe was the GPS anyway?


I didn't say anything about the GPS. Not everyone responding to you is the same person.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

You are correct there, are you willing to admit that 10% was a grievous error on your part?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

dcb said:


> You are correct there, are you willing to admit that 10% was a grievous error on your part?


Sure.

derp.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

You mean different publications with different testing methodologies on different road surfaces achieve different test results? *gasp*


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

no, I mean manufacturers use lies sprinkled with bullshit and try to pass it off as methodology, and a lot of "journalists" are just children mentally who get excited and never fact check or question.

and when tesla uses different methodologies for different models, what do you call that?

2.6 ZERO to 60 is complete bullshit. They don't count from zero, not even close, could be off by 20%. There is no excuse because we can make much better measurements. Time for manufacturers/journalists to stop lying about 0-60, it isn't science.

I really am at a loss how anyone can defend it here in 2015, because 60 year old staging light "technology" that was never meant to measure 60mph attainment anyway?!?


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Its only bullshit if they do it differently for different cars. It is perfectly valid if a magazine performs all of their tests that way. Btw, its not just the rollout. Some publications perform the test on a standard shitty road surface, while others do it at a sticky prepped drag strip. 

0-60 times are like chassis dyno numbers, they are most useful as relative measurements instead of absolute measurements. There is no right way, as long as you are consistent in your application. This way you can measure the performance against other vehicles tested by the same publication.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> Its only bullshit if they do it differently for different cars.


Which is exactly the case, and everyone does it because they want the best marking numbers (bullshit numbers). It says 0-60, it should be 0-60, or as close as they can measure. Again, at a loss why you would think otherwise, for any reason at all, defies comprehension.

I understand 0-60 has been co-opted by the marketers, I prefer truth in advertising, again I don't see how anyone would want otherwise. There isn't any good excuse for it all all. "status quo" isn't an excuse, you don't even need a $20,000 box. The worlds "most sophisticated car" CERTAINLY can measure from as close to zero and as close to 60mph as the best of us, it is just bullshit that they don't.

It reminds me of the mpge crap, where chevy (and others) were claiming ridiculously high numbers, and of course the response is: if you say it gets 240mpge, well can we place you in the middle of the desert 240 miles from anywhere with a gallon of gas?

It is perfectly fine to expect honest figures from companies, again at a loss, really don't understand the complacency. That includes idiot journalists.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

dcb said:


> Which is exactly the case, and everyone does it because they want the best marking numbers (bullshit numbers). It says 0-60, it should be 0-60, or as close as they can measure. Again, at a loss why you would think otherwise, for any reason at all, defies comprehension.
> 
> I understand 0-60 has been co-opted by the marketers, I prefer truth in advertising, again I don't see how anyone would want otherwise. There isn't any good excuse for it all all. "status quo" isn't an excuse, you don't even need a $20,000 box. The worlds "most sophisticated car" CERTAINLY can measure from as close to zero and as close to 60mph as the best of us, it is just bullshit that they don't.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about manufacturer's numbers, which should never be trusted anyways. I'm talking about numbers from journalist testers, which are done consistently. 

You can bitch and moan all you want about semantics, but the fact is there is no perfect way to do this. There are so many variables in play. Accelerating from a complete stop will place bias on certain characteristics, just like doing it from a roll will bias others. Thats not even factoring in the road surface used, as that can drastically affect the results. Or elevation when comparing gas cars. And on, and on, and on... 

Once again, it will ALWAYS be most useful as a comparative measure. When looking at a number from Motor Trend, you compare it to other cars tested by Motor Trend. The actual number isn't as important as how it compares to other cars.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Another thing to remember is that when we had a "fast car" with a 10 second 0-60 this was an easy and useful measure

Nowadays when a cooking saloon is 0-60 in 7 seconds and sports cars are under 4 seconds this measure is both less useful and more difficult to measure


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

here is another confused 0-60 measure, just call it 60 foot time eh? 
decided it was worth 0-60mph in 1.9 seconds after more fudging by Medford, and simply accepted by the article writer. 1.9 second 0-60mph isn't cause for inquiry?!?

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/...4-second-0-60-time-builder-sets-200-mph-goal/

And "launch control" is another game, but I'll give 'em that one if it is on a switch or something. I wouldn't want to drive like that all the time.

so does guiness use rollout? Certainly that is one area where it absolutely matters.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-0-100-kmh-acceleration-electric-car

So, update the methodology, like standard day, standard track (surface,temp,etc), lasers or whatev, not that hard, number of tests, standard deviations, no reason for 1/2 a second of slop in claimed 0-60 numbers. No parroting of bogus numbers either, nothing is perfect but we can still have standards. Haven't heard anything from the SAE on 0-60mph, though they will call you to task on HP claims.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

No rollout, 2.85 seconds:
https://youtu.be/rqCDmJnvK-c
How did CR manage to get such a crappy 0-60 time?


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

samwichse said:


> No rollout, 2.85 seconds:
> https://youtu.be/rqCDmJnvK-c
> How did CR manage to get such a crappy 0-60 time?


They aren't car people over there. Driver skill is yet another variable that makes this a poor absolute measure, even if you manage standardize the testing procedure.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

samwichse said:


> No rollout, 2.85 seconds:
> https://youtu.be/rqCDmJnvK-c
> How did CR manage to get such a crappy 0-60 time?


Ahh ! But..... That was at night....!
..I'm sure dcb won't consider that a valid result ...not a "standard day" is it ..!


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

umm, geniuses, according to the youtube time index, it took over 3 seconds.

What clock are you looking at?

You think the dragtimes folks arent going to use a rollout? Going frame by frame it is clearly 3.2+ seconds. Where did you read that they didn't fudge in a rollout?



samwichse said:


> No rollout, 2.85 seconds:
> https://youtu.be/rqCDmJnvK-c
> How did CR manage to get such a crappy 0-60 time?


That was "actual" CR time for the p85D, you posted a P90D video with no methodology notes.



rochesterricer said:


> They aren't car people over there. Driver skill is yet another variable that makes this a poor absolute measure, even if you manage standardize the testing procedure.


I doubt it takes much skill in a tesla. A hellcat, sure, but they have described their methods, sometimes using brake torque if it helps. I don't think this is a fair aspersion. If by "not car people" you mean that they won't cook the books in favor of better times, then you are correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCbEAttZTtA


here was my methodology on the p90d video:
car starts moving right at 13.0 seconds, play bar length is 371px
car hits 60mph, play bar length is 463px

13.0*463/371 = end time = 16.224s

0-60mph time per video *3.224s* tesla p90D insane mode.

per pixel resolution=0.035s (13.0s/371px)


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

The timing lights in the start box at a drag strip are used for staging and to determine DQ and initiate the timer. It takes ~ 1-ft roll by the tire in the start box to break/release the beams and start the ET timer.

A faster ET can still lose a race if the driver has a slow reaction time, because the ET timer doesn't start until the tire moves to break/release the beam. RT is measured between the green light and the 1-ft roll.

So that is why the US magazines use a 1-ft rollout subtraction in their 1/4-mile and 0-60 times.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

that is an 80 year old excuse for inaccuracy, they never measured 0-60mph at the track anyway, only 0-60ft, so it isn't really true either (probably some idiot journalist mixed it up 1/2 a century ago and it stuck)


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

dcb said:


> I doubt it takes much skill in a tesla. A hellcat, sure, but they have described their methods, sometimes using brake torque if it helps. I don't think this is a fair aspersion. If by "not car people" you mean that they won't cook the books in favor of better times, then you are correct.


I can tell you don't have any motorsports experience. No, it still makes a big difference. This is why there is such a large disparity of times achieved by private owners, even in a relatively easy car like the Model S. If the Tesla was as super simple as you claim, then it would be possible to get the exact same time run after run, over and over again. Btw, the times in the video were recorded with a Vbox, which is much more accurate that trying to judge the time in a Youtube video. You can't count on a web video frame rate measurements to be accurate, especially down to fractions of a second.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

dcb said:


> that is an 80 year old excuse for inaccuracy, they never measured 0-60mph at the track anyway, only 0-60ft, so it isn't really true either (probably some idiot journalist mixed it up 1/2 a century ago and it stuck)


He is saying that 0-60 isn't the only acceleration metric they record. Many consider the 1/4 times to be much more important. It that case, it is important to emulate the timing methods employed by drag strips for a consistent measurement that is applicable to results that would be achieved at a track.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> He is saying that 0-60 isn't the only acceleration metric they record. Many consider the 1/4 times to be much more important. It that case, it is important to emulate the timing methods employed by drag strips for a consistent measurement that is applicable to results that would be achieved at a track.


I'm really sure I buy that line of reasoning either, or it too is very much out of date. I mean there are infinitely more people (especially sedan drivers) who are more interested in accelerating from a complete stop to the speed limit, or thereabouts. And the tracks were never set up to measure 0-60mph in the first place, that isn't a measure that lends itself to simple electronic eye placement, unlike 60 feet.

0-60mph means nothing to a drag racer, since the race is about time to distance and not speed. Not that there isn't a measure of correlation, just not as good as what is and has been available, for many many decades.



rochesterricer said:


> I can tell you don't have any motorsports experience. No, it still makes a big difference.


So horribly wrong it is laughable, you really need to check your bias. They DO use brake torque IF (and WHEN) it helps, it doesn't always make a difference, and MOST drivers don't drive like that, they do a LOT of tests.

samwichse didn't even sanity test his own assumptions before declaring "no rollout"...

I don't care if you think I'm a motorsports guy or not, if it means I have to lie about basic physics to be one.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

dcb said:


> So horribly wrong it is laughable, you really need to check your bias. They DO use brake torque IF (and WHEN) it helps, it doesn't always make a difference, and MOST drivers don't drive like that, they do a LOT of tests.
> 
> samwichse didn't even sanity test his own assumptions before declaring "no rollout"...
> 
> I don't care if you think I'm a motorsports guy or not, if it means I have to lie about basic physics to be one.


Brake torque isn't the only factor. If you read articles from other testers, you will see other techniques that work better with the Tesla. Its also painfully obvious you have never driven a car down a drag strip before. You ask me to check my bias, but you continue to trust the results of one source over all others. At this point its pretty clear you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we are done here.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

We were done before we started, you think lying about 0-60 and statements like "no rollout" when there is a .4 second time difference between reported and actual are just fine.

Why should anyone take you seriously anyway? You are too entrenched in perpetuating this nonsense. I can just as easily say you have never accelerated from a stoplight in a consumer vehicle by your logic.

I really don't understand the "1/4 mile which never actually measured 0-60mph" argument.

I mean if you like EVs, you would think getting rid of that rollout crap would be beneficial, no gear changes, orders of magnitude better traction control (again, track rules are completely irrelevant).


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

dcb said:


> umm, geniuses, according to the youtube time index, it took over 3 seconds.
> 
> What clock are you looking at?


The one on the Vbox?
ROFL 

No it's fine, you're right in every way shape and form. It's all a huge conspiracy or something. We're all idiots for not following your ever-narrowing canyon of requisites designed to allow your continued outrage over... what, exactly?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

samwichse said:


> No rollout





samwichse said:


> The one on the Vbox?
> ROFL


Lol, you can't even read the vbox, not as well as the actual time the accell took on the video itself anyway.

besides vbox has a rollout setting!!!
http://www.racelogic.co.uk/_downloads/vbox/Manuals/Data_Loggers/RLVBM01_Manual.pdf 
"Enabling 1 Foot Rollout correction
 Press the MENU button to enter the Performance Menu.
 Highlight the 1 FOOT ROLLOUT option and press OK"


HAHAHA 

You have to accept the fact that you have no idea (well you do now) that there was no rollout used, and the actual time 0-60 from the video you provided proves that some bullshit like that was going on.


But he did a nice overlay where he typed in some numbers and the word "Valid"...

Another tesla user seems to agree that there must have been rollout here, and I'm sure he isn't happy about the deception either.
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/finally-video-060-p90d-ludicrous
"lph | SEPTEMBER 27, 2015
Just re-ran the video. It does include the 1 foot rollout. hmmm."

How were you so easily fooled? Isn't that reason enough to quit this rollout nonsense?

I mean sticky tires, 2.5 tons, gobs of torque with nano-second control and 4wd? the tesla is gonna be the most consistent (except for pack voltage) launch anyone has ever seen. No EV-er should be arguing FOR rollout fudge.

Edit, a bit more corroborating evidence as to my method and general observations( 0.012 sec difference):


dcb said:


> 0-60mph time per video *3.224s* tesla p90D insane mode.
> 
> per pixel resolution=0.035s (13.0s/371px)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYiQgUzE4_c
"VBOX data from a separate run. 0-60 in 2.895 with 1ft rollout. Best *without rollout* has been *3.236s*"

I find it hard to believe that "motorsports guys" would be afraid of more accuracy and information and consistency and terms like "standard deviation"... It wont have a negative effect on anyone's penis size, I promise.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)




----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

from the guy who said the sky was falling by %10...

It's like you guys want something that is a simple science/engineering task, a basic measure of physics, to be political or sociological (It hurts your "feels" to use an actual 0-60mph figure).


----------

