Tesla push Model S P90DL performance to 0 - 60 2.65 seconds - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Back in June, we reported that Tesla was secretly boosting the power output of the Model S and some owners were reporting outputs greater than 500 kW – up from previous highs of ~450 kW. Earlier this month, we reported how the new output was now producing quarter-mile runs of 10.8 seconds. Now the latest test shows that the new Tesla Model S P90D in Ludicrous mode can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 2.6 seconds. DragTimes did the tests on a Tesla Model S P90D with the Ludicrous battery upgrade on regular 19″ wheels and skinny 245/45/19 all season tires.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://electrek.co/2016/08/18/new-tesla-model-s-p90d-ludicrous-accelerate-0-60-2-6/"]Source[/URL] [video=youtube;3pCrA7F_Ghc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pCrA7F_Ghc[/video]

One thing I find awesome is that will all of the options, it's still cheaper by $30,000 (In the US) than the next cheapest car that does that time from 0-60.

[QUOTE=Animosus;50908776]One thing I find awesome is that will all of the options, it's still cheaper by $30,000 (In the US) than the next cheapest car that does that time from 0-60.[/QUOTE] i feel like teslas are seen as a "rich man's car" but honestly they seem pretty decently priced imo

I want to know what top speed you can get to before the motor bursts into flames if you take the governor out.

[QUOTE=OvB;50908793]I want to know what top speed you can get to before the motor bursts into flames if you take the governor out.[/QUOTE] If I had to guess, strictly based on aerodynamics and horse power on a non-performance variant, a little over 200mph. Though at that speed that power draw could brick the battery after only like 5 minutes.

[QUOTE=pith_;50908784]i feel like teslas are seen as a "rich man's car" but honestly they seem pretty decently priced imo[/QUOTE] Considering the tech that's in them, I'd say they are pretty decently priced.

[QUOTE=pith_;50908784]i feel like teslas are seen as a "rich man's car" but honestly they seem pretty decently priced imo[/QUOTE] It's mostly that they are most prominent in the California Bay Area / Los Angeles which are expensive places to live. It seems like a more affordable car if you live there but I think it basically traps you in that area of the state. I never see Teslas here in Northern California.

the thing with teslas being a 'rich' car is their high prices and low availability of major charge stations kind of limited a lot of potential buyers in the first place. They're working out more economy grade cars already and want to serve the entire market top to bottom, but the price had to happen as it was new, experimental tech taking a huge chance on the market at all

Tesla's are massive popular in my country, especially in my city i see 2-3 everyday and with all the norwegians tourists coming here there's even more on the road

Now if only they didn't cost $110,000 in Denmark that would be great :tableflip:

[QUOTE=Animosus;50908776]One thing I find awesome is that will all of the options, it's still cheaper by $30,000 (In the US) than the next cheapest car that does that time from 0-60.[/QUOTE] and you get a cup holder for that price as well

[QUOTE=OvB;50908793]I want to know what top speed you can get to before the motor bursts into flames if you take the governor out.[/QUOTE] in the current car, not as much as you think, the torque drops off kinda soon, if the thing had some kind of transmission, it wouldnt be much of a problem. The motors are governing themselves if you remove any additional governor [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] they can spin fast, but there's no torque that high up [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] theres plenty of documentation of this

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50909692]in the current car, not as much as you think, the torque drops off kinda soon, if the thing had some kind of transmission, it wouldnt be much of a problem. The motors are governing themselves if you remove any additional governor [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] they can spin fast, but there's no torque that high up [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] theres plenty of documentation of this[/QUOTE] Transmission in an EV is kinda hard to do, the torque shreds even the strongest gearboxes. But yeah I agree that the top speed wouldn't be all that much higher than what the cars can currently do. When they approach top speed they are only going up by 1 MPH or so every few seconds. Maybe you'd get another 10 - 20 out of it?

[QUOTE=Sableye;50909343]and you get a cup holder for that price as well[/QUOTE] This, my car's getting in the sporty range and you can tell solely by the extremely small cupholder that only fits the thin variety of soft drink cans :(.

[QUOTE=Supacasey;50908843]If I had to guess, strictly based on aerodynamics and horse power on a non-performance variant, a little over 200mph. Though at that speed that power draw could brick the battery after only like 5 minutes.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OvB;50908793]I want to know what top speed you can get to before the motor bursts into flames if you take the governor out.[/QUOTE] I don't think it would just burst into flames. I think it would turn itself into a pile of metal shavings. Then possibly burst into flames. Cruising at the current top speed does not consume that much power. It's an RPM limit more than anything else. The cars have an extremely aggressive step down on the gearing, so the motors are hitting ridiculously high rpms. At high rpms the tensile strength of the materials becomes a problem. It's the same reason high end centrifuges are so expensive. Any imbalance is going to cause enormous issues, and the G forces involved will shred any motor with material imperfections. The tolerances get stupid tight past 10,000 RPM.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50910447]I don't think it would just burst into flames. I think it would turn itself into a pile of metal shavings. Then possibly burst into flames. Cruising at the current top speed does not consume that much power. It's an RPM limit more than anything else.[/QUOTE] iirc these motors can do something like 16krpm without much of an issue, there's just no torque there to keep accelerating [editline]19th August 2016[/editline] you gonna run out of juice fast though so who knows about long periods at that speed

[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50910461]iirc these motors can do something like 16krpm without much of an issue, there's just no torque there to keep accelerating[/QUOTE] The lack of torque is in large part due to interference. The magnetic field starts to fight itself, and you start generating impulses in the casing. This is (theorized to be) the reason so many of their drive units were failing. The bearings were getting destroyed. Even disregarding that, the material limitations start becoming a factor past that point. With less aggressive step down gearing, the cars easily have enough power to go over 200 mph. You'd just sacrifice a lot of torque in doing that.

I must be the only one who doesn't care for this. There's no reason to get to this speed that fast. Would rather the money to go toward innovative safety features or new tech

[QUOTE=redBadger;50910721]I must be the only one who doesn't care for this. There's no reason to get to this speed that fast. Would rather the money to go toward innovative safety features or new tech[/QUOTE] emergency passing? crazy shit happening suddenly behind you and you need acceleration to get away?

[QUOTE=Supacasey;50908843]If I had to guess, strictly based on aerodynamics and horse power on a non-performance variant, a little over 200mph. Though at that speed that power draw could brick the battery after only like 5 minutes.[/QUOTE] Would it really though? Shouldn't it get more economical (to a limit) as the speed increases? Because at high speeds the engine is only required to engage a small amount of power to essentially 'keep the wheels turning' - mass and inertia and such are doing most of the work for you... That being said, I have no understanding of how the whole electric motor components work so maybe it's completely different. I'd be very curious to see! [editline]now[/editline] Oops never mind, basically answered a couple of posts up. Very neat.

[QUOTE=Sobek-;50910735]Would it really though? Shouldn't it get more economical (to a limit) as the speed increases? Because at high speeds the engine is only required to engage a small amount of power to essentially 'keep the wheels turning' - mass and inertia and such are doing most of the work for you... That being said, I have no understanding of how the whole electric motor components work so maybe it's completely different. I'd be very curious to see![/QUOTE] i'm a bit fuzzy on my electrical engines, but not as much. if it's not sending power in at the speed of the wheels, it's effectively acting like like a brake to create power

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;50910726]emergency passing? crazy shit happening suddenly behind you and you need acceleration to get away?[/QUOTE] I think the point was that Teslas are already very fast, so they should focus on other things rather than taking like a tenth of a second off of the 0-100 run. Other things such as safety, range and proper luxury comparable to European cars etc. Also I don't think it is wise in any emergency situation ever to step on the accelerator. Especially not in a sedan that weighs more than two metric tonnes.

[QUOTE=sb27;50910797]I think the point was that Teslas are already very fast, so they should focus on other things rather than taking like a tenth of a second off of the 0-100 run. Other things such as safety, range and proper luxury comparable to European cars etc. Also I don't think it is wise in any emergency situation ever to step on the accelerator. Especially not in a sedan that weighs more than two metric tonnes.[/QUOTE] so if a car's blowing up behind you you shouldn't accelerate?

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;50910813]so if a car's blowing up behind you you shouldn't accelerate?[/QUOTE] Yes. What if their is another car, or a bend in the road, in front of you? You might not realise that if it's a split second decision. Chances are that you're already travelling at the speed limit too. But anyways it's like if a kangaroo jumps out in front of you while you're driving here. Never, ever swerve to avoid it. Brake it you must, but it's better to brake and hit it than swerve into incoming traffic or lose control of the car.

[QUOTE=sb27;50910834]Yes. What if their is another car, or a bend in the road, in front of you? You might not realise that if it's a split second decision. Chances are that you're already travelling at the speed limit too. But anyways it's like if a kangaroo jumps out in front of you while you're driving here. Never, ever swerve to avoid it. Brake it you must, but it's better to brake and hit it than swerve into incoming traffic or lose control of the car.[/QUOTE] what if there isn't? you can continue to play the what if game or understand that while there isn't a reason other than "fastest 4 door production vehicle", it isn't a terrible reason

They can work on speed and safety at the same time. The car is already one of the safest cars made, and autopilot gets better every day.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;50910844]what if there isn't? you can continue to play the what if game or understand that while there isn't a reason other than "fastest 4 door production vehicle", it isn't a terrible reason[/QUOTE] If it was such an important safety feature, why can't all cars do the 0-100 sprint in under five seconds? Why can't a Toyota Camry, which is one of the safest cars on the market today, do it in under three seconds? A very high 0-100 speed has nothing to do with safety, except perhaps making the car even less safe. The only point is that it sells to people who get boners about those speeds, who try to justify it to other people by saying 'but overtaking'.

[QUOTE=sb27;50910872]If it was such an important safety feature, why can't all cars do the 0-100 sprint in under five seconds? Why can't a Toyota Camry, which is one of the safest cars on the market today, do it in under three seconds? A very high 0-100 speed has nothing to do with safety, except perhaps making the car even less safe. The only point is that it sells to people who get boners about those speeds, who try to justify it to other people by saying 'but overtaking'.[/QUOTE] Like it or not, it is a feature. There's more than a few tiny 4 leaf clovers around the world. Merging on those is a legitimate pain in the ass, even with my car, which is hilariously more powerful than I actually need. Definitely not the sole reason I'd buy a car, but being able to floor it to get out of situations has saved me from several crashes. Having acceleration capabilities that are several levels above what I currently is definitely not a feature I'd complain about. Teslas don't handle like a sports car, because they are 3 ton land barges, but a responsible driver that can utilize the extra margins without driving aggressively and becoming reliant on them will be safer than the same driver in a less powerful vehicle.

[QUOTE=redBadger;50910721]I must be the only one who doesn't care for this. There's no reason to get to this speed that fast. Would rather the money to go toward innovative safety features or new tech[/QUOTE] Allowing more current out of the battery has a secondary effect, decreased charging times! The latest Tesla cars are maintaining a higher current before they start trickling off for much longer than before. [IMG]http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/charging.jpg[/IMG] Plus it's already the safest car on the road.

What the actual fuck is that graph?