08-16-2012, 12:04 AM #1
2012 Tesla Model S test numbers - 12.6@108
IMO this is very impressive for such a heavy vehicle. I saw it in person today as well and was blown away by the quality of the design. I'll post my photos/impressions in a separate thread.
Vehicle: 2012 Tesla Model S
Driver: Mike Monticello
Price: $94,350 (base price)
Drive Type: Transverse, rear-motor, rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Single-speed direct drive
Engine Type: 310 kW, three-phase four-pole electric
Redline (rpm): 7,600
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 416 @ 5,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 443 @ 0
Brake Type (front): 13.2-inch ventilated steel rotors, four-piston fixed calipers
Brake Type (rear): 14.4-inch ventilated steel rotors, four-piston fixed calipers
Suspension Type(front): Independent double wishbones, pneumatic springs, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, pneumatic springs, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): 245/35ZR21
Tire Size (rear): 265/35ZR21 (101Y)
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Pilot Sport PS2
Tire Type: Asymmetrical summer performance
As Tested Curb Weight (lbs.): 4,770
0-30 (sec): 2.0 (2.0 w/ TC on)
0-45 (sec): 3.0 (3.0 w/ TC on)
0-60 (sec): 4.3 (4.3 w/ TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.0 (4.0 w/ TC on)
0-75 (sec): 6.1 (6.1 w/ TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 12.6 @ 108.3 (12.6 @ 108.2 w/ TC on)
30-0 (ft): 27
60-0 (ft): 108
Slalom (mph): 66.8 (66.0 w/TC off)
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.86 (0.86 w/TC on)
Db @ Idle: 35.4
Db @ Full Throttle: 64.2
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 61.2
Acceleration: As you would expect with a ton of instant torque, it gets off the line in a hurry, with no wheelspin whatsoever. Just endless forward thrust. The first and second runs were the quickest, and after that it just got slower and slower despite having plenty of charge. By the sixth and final run it was 0.3 second slower.
Braking: Very firm pedal. Feels like a normal car without all the hybrid wonkiness. Just a little bit of extra travel at the very end of the stroke, but no fade and rock-solid stability. First stop was 110 feet. Second stop was shortest at 108 feet and third stop was longest at 112 feet. Very consistent.
Skid pad: Definitely felt the weight here, and the lack of a free-revving internal combustion engine means changes in throttle have less effect on the chassis. Still, car felt pretty precise.
Slalom: The stability system cannot be fully defeated, but I was impressed with the intervention point. And it would even allow some decent slalom-exit-power-on oversteer before it would slam on the brakes. Preferred the midlevel standard mode over Sport, which seemed like it was fighting me more than helping. A very long and heavy car and was surprised it could go through at almost 67 mph. Seems like a very good suspension tuning compromise.
08-16-2012, 12:57 AM #2
Impressive performance and solid design in terms of beauty IMO. However, I saw a bunch of Fisker Karmas today in person and I have to say they were quite gorgeous. The paint was also extremely well done and available in some very cool colors.
08-16-2012, 12:58 AM #3
The Fisker is better looking but even heavier. And it's slower...
08-16-2012, 01:53 AM #4
08-16-2012, 04:38 AM #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- le Paris
- Rep Points
- 48 Post(s)
- Rep Power
08-16-2012, 04:48 AM #6
08-16-2012, 04:55 AM #7
08-16-2012, 05:02 AM #8
And with Tesla's, the battery pack is in the middle, so more stopping power "should"go to the front.
The ESS battery pack design is made up of 6831 individual lithium ion cells and the total ESS battery pack weight is 900 lbs (409 kg). The battery pack is stored behind the passenger compartment and in front of the rear storage compartment
Tesla probably has a good reason for doing this. I just thought it was odd.There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works
08-16-2012, 05:15 AM #9
There literally is nothing but a trunk in the front which has to be super light.
08-17-2012, 04:47 AM #10Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Rep Points
- 2 Post(s)
- Rep Power
If this car has regenerative braking then the motor is helping slow the car down too, which could explain why the front doesn't need to be as big. Motor+13''rotor>14''rotor?
Another guess would be that given the instant tq it has, during traction control events it needs a large rotor to help resist over heating?
08-20-2012, 02:01 AM #11