> The Model S P100D with Ludicrous mode is the third fastest accelerating production car ever produced, with a 0-60 mph time of 2.5* seconds. However, both the LaFerrari and the Porsche 918 Spyder were limited run, million dollar vehicles and cannot be bought new.
> * Expected value using max power mode and Motor Trend benchmark
Suggesting that this is expected value, and not observed performance?
Edit: Or they are suggesting that you could potentially reach that value in "ideal" conditions, using the Motor Trend method to adjust some observed values to this normalised time?
"While the P100D Ludicrous is obviously an expensive vehicle, we want to emphasize that every sale helps pay for the smaller and much more affordable Tesla Model 3 that is in development. Without customers willing to buy the expensive Model S and X, we would be unable to fund the smaller, more affordable Model 3 development."
That's been Tesla's business plan for quite some time, use luxury cars to fund the company to mass production. It isn't news, but it does seem out of context.
They frequently get a lot of people complaining that they're just selling really expensive luxury cars to the rich, so they have to keep repeating this. The high performance car is needed to both fund mass production and prove that electric cars aren't golf carts.
Sorry, I tried finding a citation for that. It's in some Elon video from the past month or so.
I was about to quote that myself. While it's true that their luxury models help fund newer models, it's rather odd to state that in a press release. It comes across as: "Please pay too much for this vehicle and help subsidize someone else's future purchase."
I would read it more like: "I know several hundred thousand of you are eagerly anticipating the Model 3. Don't worry, we're still working hard to get it out, this is part of it, not a distraction from getting your cars to you."
Not what it says at all. And you'd have to be pretty oblivious to how companies, esp growing ones, operate (which I'll give you the average American probably is) to take it that way.
The models sold today are subsidising the research, design, cost of operations(salaries) that lead to a model 3 launch. Tesla is feeding it's profits back into growth. Same as all growing companies do.
I get that it doesn't actually say that, but it has that vibe. Compare "All profits from the sale of these models help fund R&D of the model 3, which will be smaller and more affordable" to "We can't produce a small, affordable model without your expensive purchase". These are functionally equivalent statements but vastly different in tone: one focuses on "funded by profits" the other focuses on "expensive purchase".
Sure, but even phrased that way, it differentiates it from some other potential substitute brands – Audi, BMW, etc. where there's no stated effort to produce a car "for everyone else." It may well help shift the brand reputation from luxury for profit to something like next-generation or innovation and progress.
> It comes across as: Please pay too much for this vehicle and help subsidize someone else's future purchase."
"... See, you're not just being a rich snob buying expensive cars, but funding a future wave of electric cars for the masses that will help save the world from global warming. So you can feel good about yourself."
It seems a strategic error from a sales perspective. Why call attention to the fact that the car is expensive? They could have pointed out that the car funds the Model 3 without highlighting the high price.
I get your point, but I think they are going for a slightly different strategy here. This is the highest trim level for them, produced in limited quantities and is being sold in part based upon its relatively exclusive nature.
Highlighting the price difference doesn't always hurt luxury products.
It is also to help influence people considering buying other electric vehicles... so if you're considering a bmw i8 or waiting for porsche mission e, you might think... this will help promote electric vehicles for the masses.
And other objectives, like colonizing space (SpaceX), standing up to the shady business of car dealerships and their stranglehold on car sales (Tesla cuts out that middle man), etc etc.
There is something odd about one consumer product funding another. Someone once wrote about the VW Veron that is was a shame that all the not-rich people buying VW Jettas paid a little more, and got a little worse of a car, so that a handful of the super rich could have Verons. Telsa would be doing the opposite. The rich people buying the expensive car are paying more, and getting less car, so that Tesla can make cheaper cars. Maybe Tesla will pull it off, but it seems unsustainable. VW could justify it as the Veron project was a tiny part of a giant company. Tesla isn't VW. Eventually someone will want to stovepipe the money made on one market into further developments for that market alone.
It is precisely profit from one business venture that allows a firm to invest in order to produce additional goods for consumers. All the consumer demand in the world could not create a Tesla Model 3; only saving and investment can.
What matters to me, and some other car guys who don't own banks, is that the Tesla is capable of doing this regularly and without breaking things. Most don't realize how delicate supercars are in real life. The Ferarri Enzo famously could only do full acceleration from a stop three or four times before needing new clutch plates, even with launch control. Electric motors are just better at the standing start. That isn't so much Tesla as the nature of the technology.
But do the race in cold weather, or over any distance (it doesn't go 300+miles while racing) and things would be very different. So too is the nature of the tech.
Better/more batteries, this is a 100kWh car, vs the P90 which is a 90kWh car. Early battery packs had the cells spaced further apart (presumably to prevent chain reaction fires) as they have gone along they have made denser battery packs. I don't know if that is because they have better inter-cell insulation, a better handle on battery discharge, or additional safety data which helps them better estimate their margins for error.
The $20,000 cost does include the "rebate" for recycling the old one. I don't know that it implies much about the actual battery costs, though. I think the main implication is that Tesla isn't terribly eager to sell battery upgrades, and they'd rather use those batteries to sell new cars, but they'll do it if you make it worth their while. With limited production capacity for the new batteries for the next few months, they don't want a bunch of upgrades getting in the way of sales to new buyers.
I wonder where they're getting 315 miles of range from in the P100D. The P90D has 270 miles of range, or 3 miles/kWh. For 100kWh it should be 300 miles of range. At 315 miles of range the P100D is 5% more efficient than the P90D.
If the upcoming 100D is also 5% more efficient than the current 90D, that car would get somewhere around 343 miles of range.
4.5 miles/kWh is hugely optimistic, and a 30kWh reserve is highly unrealistic. Tesla's range numbers are based on roughly 3.3 miles/kWh (which is reasonably realistic) and the floor is maybe 5kWh.
I can't explain the discrepancy, but it's definitely not just the floor. Either they've made some sort of efficiency improvement, or the difference between the two battery packs is more than 10kWh and they've just rounded off the figures.
"Many elements change how fast the car can accelerate to 60 mph. Tires, elevation above sea level, weight of the driver, equipment used for testing, and surface of testing track all play a big part in these times."
Maybe on a very hot day cooling would become a factor on the track, but for a single 0-100 run air temperature should be irrelevant. Electric cars don't need to ingest hundreds of grams per second of air to make high power outputs. Unless you're referring to the impact of air density on aerodynamic drag, which should be negligible at such low speeds.
Home runs travel further at Coors Field. Field goals are longer at Mile High. Sprinters turn in faster times at higher altitudes. You can bet that the air density will affect vehicle acceleration tests significantly.
Drag scales with the square of velocity. A 110 mph home run experiences vastly more drag than a car traveling 30 mph on its way to 60 mph. The ball might fly 18% faster in Denver than it will at sea level, but the car isn't going to accelerate 18% faster.
There's a whole raft of other aspects. Temperature will affect traction, for example. Similarly, the pressure differential between the tyres and the atmosphere will change their performance similarly to pressurising tyres to a different pressure at sea level.
There's a whole raft of influences that altitude may have that aren't immediately apparent. To say it has 'absolutely no impact' is simply wrong.
> the impact of air density on aerodynamic drag, which should be negligible at such low speeds
The impact air density on aerodynamic drag is huge even in human athletic events - on the order of 1% or more [1]. The impact increases quadratically with speed so it should be 3-5 times more significant in the final stretch of a 0-60 than at the 25mph speed of a sprinter.
I'll add to the other responses that downforce is also something to be considered and air density is a factor there as well.
The person I was responding to said "absolutely no impact", which is absolutely incorrect. I don't have a great intuition of how significant these factors are on the model, but I would not dismiss the terms without careful consideration when we're measuring results in fractions of a second.
If anything it would have more impact since the lack of oxygen at higher altitudes won't effect the engine (as it would in gasoline-powered vehicles), but it'll still change the drag.
Shouldn't higher elevations have a tiny difference in lowering wind resistance from thinner air? It's definitely a much smaller effect than on a IC engine.
I wonder how well a special version of the Tesla Model S would do on the Top Gear track, if it reduced its battery weight to the point where it could just barely complete the course? The battery weight is its biggest problem as a track car.
The trouble is that battery capacity and power output are greatly related. That's why this new P100D is faster than the P90D, and why Tesla's slowest offerings are also those with the smallest batteries. For a given battery, you can extract X% of its capacity per minute without significantly damaging it, where X depends on chemistry, temperature, and what you consider to be "significant." If you add capacity, X remains the same, so the absolute power you can extract goes up.
From what I hear, cooling is its biggest problem as a track car. The cooling system is sized for highway cruising, not track driving, so it overheats and limits power after a while.
How about specialized Tesla racing battery packs using super-capacitors and equipped with a cooling system? (Using the whole aluminum underside of the battery pack as a radiator.)
I'm not sure how supercapacitors do on energy density right now, but a better cooling system certainly sounds good. It would be interesting to see what the Electric GT people are doing. They're going to be racing P85+s next year, and I imagine it would be boring to the viewers if the cars limited power due to overheating during the race.
The Telsa also is really only fast from 0-60 or maybe 0-100. I've ridden around my local race track in one with tires squealing the whole way and while it was ridiculous off the line (I say that as the owner of a 600+ hp car), it's acceleration dropped off greatly the faster you went.
Sure, the CTS-V starts at 120mph, but as soon as the turns start up its difficult for the driver to get the speed up. A lot of turns are taken at 40mph or slower, and accelerating back up to ~100mph is something the Tesla is very good at.
I don't think the Tesla's top-speed issues are a problem. Its more about the weight and its poor skid-pad that is keeping it off the track. And of course, that electric-battery heating issue.
Anyway, this was around Portland International Raceway and your car has to be pretty dang slow to not break 100 MPH on both the front straight and the back straight there.
A smaller battery would be limited to a lower output power (as max battery power is defined as a function of battery capacity), so reducing the battery size would make it slower. The fastest it could be would be for most of the mass of the car to be battery, at which point it could theoretically have 5000+ horsepower, although there are practical limitations of course of transmitting that to the road.
I think the biggest problem Model S has as a track car is that it is a luxury four door sedan.
The WHOLE point is this ton of bricks luxury four door can accelerate like no bodies business, faster than most track cars. Not that the Model S/X is a track car.
Interesting idea, why not make the battery in segments and removable. Weight affects range too, so why not make the battery as 4 segments, and if you're just going to have a 30 minute daily commute, you could take out 3 segments and have enough range while saving weight, and the environment. If you want to go for a weekend trip you'd plug in the other segments.
Obviously it'd be a bit of a nuisance and probably the segment that is always in the car will die first, because it'll have the most cycles. Unless the software controls which segments you can remove and do some wear-levelling.
you need the larger pack size to deliver enough current to do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds.
Just don't ask how it would perform in a 10 mile race ;-)
spoiler alert: the software throttles the top speed down aggressively as the battery heats up, which it will do very quickly while accelerating rapidly.
I haven't kept up with it (I'd assume someone has more recent data/times), but I know older version's of the S had trouble doing full laps of Laguna Seca and the Nürburgring due to heat. Is that still the case?
Well, really, who cares how quick it is? For the average Tesla buyer the speed upgrade is mostly a novelty. Just because it can accelerate doesn't make it a hypercar, sportscar, or even sports sedan alternative. What really makes this option is the range, which is really outstanding.
Elon wants to make electric cars not just practical, but compelling. It can't just be the best electric car, it has to be the best electric car, period. He wants to tick all the boxes:
[x] Safest
[x] Fastest
[x] Longest range for a BEV
[x] Fastest charging time, and a large network
[x] Bet looking BEV
[x] Most advanced commercial autonomy
[x] "hell bent on being the best manufacturer in the world"
>"While the P100D Ludicrous is obviously an expensive vehicle, we want to emphasize that every sale helps pay for the smaller and much more affordable Tesla Model 3 that is in development. Without customers willing to buy the expensive Model S and X, we would be unable to fund the smaller, more affordable Model 3 development."
IN other words: Hey! they are expensive but please help other people buy inexpensive cars by buying this expensive one yourself. Bit wierd!
I don't think that line is for the people who can afford this expensive car. Rather, I think it's for the people who want a Tesla, but are frustrated that they can't afford one. Basically, it's saying, don't get angry at us for selling this super expensive car you can't afford! We're using revenue from its sales to make the car you will be able to afford.
I don't get why everyone is reading this line negatively.
When I read the headline my first thought was "Oh, that'll help with the cashflow problems for Model 3's ramp up."
Tesla buyers make their choice on strong feature differences. The company puts very little effort into telling people what to think of their product with traditional advertising or messaging.
IMO, the primary audience of press releases like this (from Tesla, not generally) are investors. Consumers will get this news two or three levels of indirection later ie some journalist compressing and regurgitating this release, or word of mouth.
Well I can understand your view but looking objectively this message does not align the price a customer pays with the product itself (Model S P100D in this case) but rather aligns the value to a different product's prospective benefits. (Model 3 in this case which would change the world by creating a sustainable transportation.)
I think a customer naturally would try to align the value of a product to the product itself. Just think: would anyone pay expensive price for an Honda Accord if Honda tells:"Buying an expensive Accord would help us fund a new version of Civic."
There are a ton of ways to badly injure your kids by being irresponsible in any car. This doesn't really add anything new there, and the fact that they're rear-facing and permanently installed in the car should make them a fair bit safer than typical add-on child seats.
Any car that's safe for the road can already maneuver hard enough to injure unsecured passengers in at least three directions. The rear seats and high acceleration add one more direction, but also largely subtract the opposing direction, so it's a wash. You have to accommodate your passengers with how you drive in any car.
Shouldn't it be safer to be seated backwards in most situations? I doubt that children will be injured by accelerating, but in most crashes backward seating should be of advantage
It's possible to draw a lot of current from a lithium battery for very short periods, as well have pull a lot of current through a conductor for short periods.
I remember doing the calculations for some of the batteries I used in RC planes and being surprised the battery was capable of delivering 4kW continuously for minutes.
Multi-rotor enthusiast here-- I can confirm this statement! My 5" crafts pull up to 80 amps at full throttle and a mere 1.3ah 4 cell battery pack can generally keep up, albeit with some localized heating and voltage sag.
You'll achieve the official numbers at around 70MPH in mild weather. The top speed is a bit over 2x that speed, so you'd use something like 4x more energy per mile. You'd expect the range at top seed to be roughly 80 miles.
Today I stumbled upon this video of a fully electric, Croatian-made Rimac Concept One vs a Tesla Model S P90D vs a LaFerrari. The Rimac Concept One destroys everything.
We're picking nits, so I'm going to point out that Porsche claims the 911 Turbo S that they sell today does 0-60 in 2.8s, slower than you're suggesting.
I don't have firsthand knowledge to be able to say which of you is wrong.
Porsche is conservative with their reported 0-60 numbers. People that have tested it are able to get 2.5s. Look at the first two columns of times in the table here:
Thanks. The 2016 model has has a quarter mile time of 10.8 sec @ 121.99 mph. Not bad. Should dip into the 10.5 with grippy tyres. I wish they offered an additional overdrive gear to see if they would get to 200MPH. I don't know if they can handle the aero but they sure have the power.
There's a video on youtube of a guy doing it without his hands on the wheel, repeatedly (to show off the durability of the 911's transaxle, I believe, as compared to the GT-R which tended to blow up in the early models). That tech is pretty remarkable.
"Fastest" has nothing to do with getting up to speed on the freeway.
But for day to day driving, getting up to highway speed, and acceleration at passing speeds with good handling while doing so are what I actually need.
Fastest is commonly reserved for cars with the highest top speed. A fast track car is very different from that. You can have a car like a miata outpace a porsche 911 turbo on certain tracks.
I wish that were true. Notice that I did not mention a stock miata or stock 911. A properly setup miata can and will outpace a modified 911 on certain tracks (not autocross). Of course, the driver is a key element, but will still happen with equal drivers.
The issue with this snarky comment is that it fails to take into account the limits of modifying cheap cars. There are cheap cars that may be modified to go faster than an expensive one without modifying the original structure (no tube chassis). But not all cheap cars can achieve that. Only a small list of "cheap" cars can do so. Such as the miata, civic, mustang, etc. In fact, the word cheap is not even the right way to address these cars because price does not define a cars performance or potential.
Eh. What "matters" is pretty debatable when it comes to cars. I very rarely accelerate from 0-60mph in one single acceleration, same as I rarely reach top speed.
For production cars top speed doesn't matter, after you get past highway speeds it is meaningless. Maybe it's me, but I'd rather a car that goes 0-60 really fast and can only go 100MPH than one that goes 0-60 slower but can go 200MPH.
And I'd like one that can corner on rails, which is arguably more valuable than both speed and acceleration (after all, acceleration, after a certain point, is also useless).
This is the reason that the metrics I tend to look for are skidpad rating and 60-0 rating. Turning abruptly at high speed to avoid debris and braking abruptly from highway speeds are both things I do depressingly often.
I often do, nearly every time I stop at a toll booth (toll roads, bridges, and tunnels are very common in my area -- I'm guessing they're uncommon in your area, lucky you).
(Of course, being able to do that really quickly, while fun, is not so /useful/ in real life, so it's still pretty debatable what "matters")
Except that they like to point out that the Porsche and Ferrari are "little 2 seaters with no cargo capacity" while the Tesla can carry seven passengers and has exceptional cargo capacity - well, without the passengers in the third row. And the fact that the 0-60 time was with only a driver on board, not the seven passengers + cargo, so it's a little unfair to call out the others for that.
Cadillac CTS-V is the actual luxury vehicle Tesla is competing against.
Roughly the same price. CTS-V has significantly better laptimes on Laguna Seca (roughly 10-seconds faster) than Tesla's best lap times. Tesla has better 0-60 acceleration but that's about it.
CTS-V has better skidpad-tested turning radius, better braking, better suspension, etc. etc.
Porsche and Ferrari are high standards and all, but they're not commuter cars, nor are they luxury cars. They are race cars that have been converted into barely street-legal form. Its unfair to compare a Tesla against them... as the Tesla is a 4-door sedan.
Someone claimed a 1:45 time with the Tesla S (maybe it was one of the faster models?), which is the fastest time I'm aware of. But still not close to the 1:38 time of the CTS-V.
I really don't think the people who buy Teslas would otherwise be buying Cadillacs. The Tesla P90D and similar are competing against the top option package BMW 7-series, Audi A8 and similar.
The Tesla P90D is $107,700 AFTER the federal credits.
The Cadillac CTS-V starts at $85k, while the normal CTS is around $45k. BMW 7-series is also around $85k with electric / hybrid models flirting $100k.
Tesla is definitely in a higher price class, but not much higher. I think its a fair comparison price-wise and feature wise.
Both the Cadillac CTS and the Tesla S are "fast" sedans with spacious interiors and cost upwards from $50,000+, with racing versions (either the CTS-V or P90D "Ludicrous") just around $100k.
---------
I can agree that the BMW 7-series counts as a competitor, but it isn't considered by anyone to be a "fast" vehicle. Aimed at more luxury. The Tesla 0-60 score has always been front-and-center as part of marketing... as has been the CTS-V.
Tesla's 4500lb curb-weight because of a 2000lb battery is a severe disadvantage. The Tesla weighs the same as an F-150 TRUCK, no lie.
An ICE car zips-around the corner with literally a thousand-pounds lighter than the electric-based Tesla. In fact, the Tesla S barely performs any better than $30k hot-hatchbacks like the Ford Focus ST or Subaru Impreza WRX. (Both of which are 4-door 5-seater sedans for a daily driver)
----------
When you get to $50,000+ ultra-luxury cars, they all have awesomely low center of gravity and optimized suspensions. IMO, it all comes down to weight for why the Tesla fails to perform on the track.
Also, the battery IIRC overheats if held in "Ludicrous" mode too long. The ICE engine virtually never overheat and can be revved high for many laps at a time.
I've heard of more issues of ICE Cars where brakes overheat... forcing the car to stop the track early... rather than the engine overheating. Tesla batteries can output a lot of power, but only for a limited time. I don't know if that "limited time" is one or two laps, but its apparently an issue.
Performance cars don't necessarily all perform well on a track. The Ford Focus ST allegedly has brakes overheat after just a few laps for example. Although, its like they say: front-wheel drive is wrong-wheel drive in these sorts of high-performance comparisons.
Not playing down the versatility of the car at all. But it's very apples and oranges if you're saying on one hand the Tesla is "better" because of the additional capacity, when both the Porsche/Ferrari were tested using exactly the same capacity as the Tesla (i.e. "a driver"), and saying "but this can carry seven people" without "at quite a lower speed"...
Not at all. They're saying that you can use the same car for hauling the family on vacation as you use to go 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, where with one of these other cars you'd need to buy two separate vehicles. They're in no way implying that the car does both things simultaneously.
That their purpose isn't to be versatile isn't a point in favor of their versatility. Tesla still wins this point as a net, regardless whether it matters to you personally.
It's like saying a multitool is more versatile than a hammer. It's true, but a multitool still makes a shitty hammer. If I want a hammer and you hand me a multitool I'm gonna be disappointed.
The exposition of the relatively versatile features was placed in the same paragraph as the acceleration claim. You'd expect the two to reconcile.
However, according to the disclaiming asterisk, the acceleration claim hasn't even been tested and is only an estimate, making the title claim particularly dubious.
Fastest is more likely to refer to top speed, and quickest is more likely to refer to the 0-60 times. But yes that's subjective difference in usage and not a strict definition.
Thanks for asking; I was very confused as well. I still don't find the difference between the two terms satisfying. I would rather them state acceleration or speed versus quick and fast.
While impressive - it would be more impressive in my mind to see the USA embrace walking, biking, and public transit in a meaningful way - rather than fetishize the wasteful consumerism that is "ludicrous mode".
Owning a new 911 and even paying extra for the sport exhaust noting that there are people who actually like the sound of the engine as adding to the experience of speed. (Also the torque curve which I assume with tesla is somewhat constant). Not to mention the manual transmission which obviously doesn't exist in an electric car. Driving even a 911 with the PDK isn't the same experience although performance wise it is better than the manual.
This seems a bit like saying "people like motorcycles so no one will ever want a sports car". Some people are going to value the raw performance over the sound and stick.
Wait, whenever I see a performance claim with an asterisk, it kind of makes me want to read the footnote:
>"- Expected value using max power mode and Motor Trend benchmark"
Oh, expected value? Hm, that's a new one. And for what, a 0-60 time?
I think of quickness a lot differently than a simple drag race. If a Tesla can can consistently out drag race 0-60 in actual value and then, for grins, lap the 'Ring faster than a Skyline GT-R, that's dang quick! But expected? Sorry, I want to groan at that.
Actually this is no suprise since a electric car doesn't need to convert mechanical energy back and forth.
It only needs to convert the electricity to mechanical energy once, so that means that the power is near instant (way higher startup turning moment), while on a gazoline motor it needs to "warm up".
Also some vehicles have multiple motors peer wheel, that is not possible with a non electric car.
As far as I know the Nissan GTR is the fastest production car in the world with 0 to 60 in 2.7s. Tesla with the ludicrous is only 3.0s. I could be wrong.
Just to be clear, its 2016 and you're snarkily attempting to put down an electric car that costs ~100k and does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds because its a second slower on the quarter mile than a Ferrari that costs >10x as much and isn't electric?
> The Model S P100D with Ludicrous mode is the third fastest accelerating production car ever produced, with a 0-60 mph time of 2.5 seconds. However, both the LaFerrari and the Porsche 918 Spyder were limited run, million dollar vehicles and cannot be bought new.
