5 ms·

Funny that the cheaper model's 0-60 time is listed as "4.1 SEC. 0-60 MPH", but the more expensive model is listed as "2.6 SEC. 0-60 MPH With rollout subtracted.

Funny that the cheaper model's 0-60 time is listed as "4.1 SEC. 0-60 MPH", but the more expensive model is listed as "2.6 SEC. 0-60 MPH With rollout subtracted." The whole rollout for 0-60 thing is a big fuss in the car magazine subculture - instead of counting zero to 60 from a standstill, they now count zero to 60 in a drag race style, where you have to trip the starting light by going forward a foot or two. What that most likely means is that the fastest model doesn't have enough grip to keep the tires from spinning off the line, so they are basically spinning the tires for a fraction of a second (or longer) and then once they start to move forward, they start counting the 0-60 time. I imagine if you did the same for the cheaper model, it's 0-60 time would look better as well.

hetspookjee 3y ago
From engineering explained the difference in the rollout for some fast cars is about 0.2-0.3 seconds on top of the actual number. Here’s the video https://youtu.be/9LTq45o0ttQ https://youtu.be/9LTq45o0ttQ
supportengineer 3y ago
Zero means zero. Who decided they could change the definition of zero?
- coin 3y ago
  Definitely misleading. It should be advertised as “1 to 60”.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Standard "rollout" test is 5-to-60. This whole thing stinks of misleading and misdirection, once again. Don't take 5-to-60 times and mislead / misdirect people into thinking it was a 0-to-60 time.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    -60 to 60 would be more interesting to watch, and pleasingly symmetrical.
    - m463 3y ago
      They used to do something (vaguely) similar, like 0-100-0 which also included brakes in the equation. I also remember a motor trend article where they figured out the "horsepower" of the brakes and a 911 would decelerate like 1000 hp
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  I mean, if the wheels are just spinning without traction it’s still at zero.
  - kllrnohj 3y ago
    The wheels aren't spinning without traction, that results in a terrible 0-60 time. Rollout originated from the practical reality of measuring with a starting beam - the tire doesn't stop breaking the beam until after it's started moving. With modern GPS data loggers and other corrections the use of rollout is just to lie about the 0-60 time to make it seem better than it is. Like the Model S Plaid wouldn't get to claim a 0-60 of under 2 seconds without that cheat code.
- ajross 3y ago
  Think of it like a microbenchmark. Acceleration for the first second or so is dominated by tire/road traction. Acceleration at non-trivial speed is governed by drive train power. Which measurement you take depends on what subsystem you want to measure. Drag nuts like tuning engines (which can be done in their shops with a high school education) and not choosing tire compositions (which requires a tire factory, and likely some polymer chemistry expertise).
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    That's called the 5-to-60 time. Car enthusiasts benchmark both 0-to-60 and 5-to-60 because that rollout can change the behavior of various cars. What we have here is Tesla taking the 5-to-60 time and pretending its a 0-to-60 time. Rollout is fine and all, just ya know, be honest about it. Call it a 5-to-60 time.
    - ajross 3y ago
      > Rollout is fine and all, just ya know, be honest about it. Call it a 5-to-60 time Are they not honest? It says so right in the spec quote. Why is "5-to-60" honest but "with rollout subtracted" dishonest? One is jargon and the other English, but I think you have to stretch really hard to read in an attempt to deceive here.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > One is jargon and the other English 5-to-60 strikes me as plain English. 0-to-60 with rollout subtracted is just bullshit.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        Putting "with rollout subtracted" in the fine print doesn't make the 0 in "0-60" less wrong. And doing it inconsistently is even less justifiable.
      - dragontamer 3y ago
        Because everyone who knows something about cars knows that 5-to-60 times are easier to do than 0-to-60 times. Taking the "easier" test and trying to call it the harder 0-to-60 test is just misleading fundamentally. Especially to car culture who has had these standard terms for the last 50 years (or longer). 0 means "Dead stop". Its difficult, it depends on extremely good tires to grip and other parts of the car that are hard to get right. It also rarely comes up in a race, so the 5-to-60 time is actually more useful in a lot of racing scenarios. So yeah, 5-to-60 is a good test. But just don't call it the 0-to-60 time (or torture the language / invent new words as if we're dumbasses and can't see the marketing bullshit going on).
- pseudosavant 3y ago
  Rollout is a part of many standard tests, even if it makes little sense when it basically means a 0-60 is more like a 5-60 or 10-60. But what makes it sketchy is that Tesla selectively excludes it in the specs for the top end models of cars to make it seem like there is an even greater performance gap.
- GloriousKoji 3y ago
  Probably the same ones who came up with the idea of "Partial zero" (emissions).
nullc 3y ago
perhaps the cheaper model doesn't break traction at all, so the difference between with and without rollout is insubstantial?
cwkoss 3y ago
Couldn't software gradually increase power to match the grip of the tires and prevent spinning? Or would that slow it down because a spinout 0-60 (not counting rollout) is faster that a "perfect throttle" 0-60?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Couldn't software gradually increase power to match the grip of the tires and prevent spinning? Traction prediction is dependent on surface characteristics [1]. You need the vehicle to not only identify the surface, but also predict the vehicle-surface interface and adjust its assumptions as tyre meets road. It's worth doing. But it's noisy enough that it wouldn't be meaningful for a quoted statistic. (Disclaimer: I've only done this for aircraft on runways, and then only academically.) [1] https://www.cavs.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2018/05/15870Mason_et_al._2018_traction_wheel_sand_Terramechanics.pdf https://www.cavs.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2018/05/15870...
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Not for take off (or not only for take off), but Audi does this on some of its high end cars (RS 7, etc.) - the vehicle is actively sensing the road, and adjusting for grip, surface, camber and problems (it can actively avoid potholes, for example).
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  It can. Modern traction control will reduce power when it detects wheel slip. The problem is they choose a slightly conservative threshold, so you end up losing power. High performance almost always wants this stuff off so humans can use skill/judgment to push it to the limit.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  That works, it's called launch control. It's just not as important as it is with ICE engines if you can supply enough power to the motors. Subtracting rollout will always give a lower number though, and it's easier.
- 3y ago
slantedview 3y ago
There's a video of Cybertruck struggling to go up a dirt hill, with tires losing traction: https://www.threads.net/@ben_woodward/post/Czeo1X-BLAd https://www.threads.net/@ben_woodward/post/Czeo1X-BLAd
- tstrimple 3y ago
  The tires seem overinflated for the environment. I bet that alone would have made a huge difference in that climb.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  I doubt any potential customer of this monstrosity will ever go up or down a dirt hill.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
With software-controlled motors there should be no slippage whatsoever. I think Tesla is only doing this to make the numbers look slightly better.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hetspookjee 3y ago

From engineering explained the difference in the rollout for some fast cars is about 0.2-0.3 seconds on top of the actual number. Here’s the video https://youtu.be/9LTq45o0ttQ https://youtu.be/9LTq45o0ttQ

supportengineer 3y ago

Zero means zero. Who decided they could change the definition of zero?

coin 3y ago
Definitely misleading. It should be advertised as “1 to 60”.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Standard "rollout" test is 5-to-60. This whole thing stinks of misleading and misdirection, once again. Don't take 5-to-60 times and mislead / misdirect people into thinking it was a 0-to-60 time.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  -60 to 60 would be more interesting to watch, and pleasingly symmetrical.
  - m463 3y ago
    They used to do something (vaguely) similar, like 0-100-0 which also included brakes in the equation. I also remember a motor trend article where they figured out the "horsepower" of the brakes and a 911 would decelerate like 1000 hp
madeofpalk 3y ago
I mean, if the wheels are just spinning without traction it’s still at zero.
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  The wheels aren't spinning without traction, that results in a terrible 0-60 time. Rollout originated from the practical reality of measuring with a starting beam - the tire doesn't stop breaking the beam until after it's started moving. With modern GPS data loggers and other corrections the use of rollout is just to lie about the 0-60 time to make it seem better than it is. Like the Model S Plaid wouldn't get to claim a 0-60 of under 2 seconds without that cheat code.
ajross 3y ago
Think of it like a microbenchmark. Acceleration for the first second or so is dominated by tire/road traction. Acceleration at non-trivial speed is governed by drive train power. Which measurement you take depends on what subsystem you want to measure. Drag nuts like tuning engines (which can be done in their shops with a high school education) and not choosing tire compositions (which requires a tire factory, and likely some polymer chemistry expertise).
- dragontamer 3y ago
  That's called the 5-to-60 time. Car enthusiasts benchmark both 0-to-60 and 5-to-60 because that rollout can change the behavior of various cars. What we have here is Tesla taking the 5-to-60 time and pretending its a 0-to-60 time. Rollout is fine and all, just ya know, be honest about it. Call it a 5-to-60 time.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > Rollout is fine and all, just ya know, be honest about it. Call it a 5-to-60 time Are they not honest? It says so right in the spec quote. Why is "5-to-60" honest but "with rollout subtracted" dishonest? One is jargon and the other English, but I think you have to stretch really hard to read in an attempt to deceive here.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > One is jargon and the other English 5-to-60 strikes me as plain English. 0-to-60 with rollout subtracted is just bullshit.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      Putting "with rollout subtracted" in the fine print doesn't make the 0 in "0-60" less wrong. And doing it inconsistently is even less justifiable.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      Because everyone who knows something about cars knows that 5-to-60 times are easier to do than 0-to-60 times. Taking the "easier" test and trying to call it the harder 0-to-60 test is just misleading fundamentally. Especially to car culture who has had these standard terms for the last 50 years (or longer). 0 means "Dead stop". Its difficult, it depends on extremely good tires to grip and other parts of the car that are hard to get right. It also rarely comes up in a race, so the 5-to-60 time is actually more useful in a lot of racing scenarios. So yeah, 5-to-60 is a good test. But just don't call it the 0-to-60 time (or torture the language / invent new words as if we're dumbasses and can't see the marketing bullshit going on).
pseudosavant 3y ago
Rollout is a part of many standard tests, even if it makes little sense when it basically means a 0-60 is more like a 5-60 or 10-60. But what makes it sketchy is that Tesla selectively excludes it in the specs for the top end models of cars to make it seem like there is an even greater performance gap.
GloriousKoji 3y ago
Probably the same ones who came up with the idea of "Partial zero" (emissions).

nullc 3y ago

perhaps the cheaper model doesn't break traction at all, so the difference between with and without rollout is insubstantial?

cwkoss 3y ago

Couldn't software gradually increase power to match the grip of the tires and prevent spinning? Or would that slow it down because a spinout 0-60 (not counting rollout) is faster that a "perfect throttle" 0-60?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Couldn't software gradually increase power to match the grip of the tires and prevent spinning? Traction prediction is dependent on surface characteristics [1]. You need the vehicle to not only identify the surface, but also predict the vehicle-surface interface and adjust its assumptions as tyre meets road. It's worth doing. But it's noisy enough that it wouldn't be meaningful for a quoted statistic. (Disclaimer: I've only done this for aircraft on runways, and then only academically.) [1] https://www.cavs.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2018/05/15870Mason_et_al._2018_traction_wheel_sand_Terramechanics.pdf https://www.cavs.msstate.edu/publications/docs/2018/05/15870...
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Not for take off (or not only for take off), but Audi does this on some of its high end cars (RS 7, etc.) - the vehicle is actively sensing the road, and adjusting for grip, surface, camber and problems (it can actively avoid potholes, for example).
SkyPuncher 3y ago
It can. Modern traction control will reduce power when it detects wheel slip. The problem is they choose a slightly conservative threshold, so you end up losing power. High performance almost always wants this stuff off so humans can use skill/judgment to push it to the limit.
AlotOfReading 3y ago
That works, it's called launch control. It's just not as important as it is with ICE engines if you can supply enough power to the motors. Subtracting rollout will always give a lower number though, and it's easier.
3y ago

slantedview 3y ago

There's a video of Cybertruck struggling to go up a dirt hill, with tires losing traction: https://www.threads.net/@ben_woodward/post/Czeo1X-BLAd https://www.threads.net/@ben_woodward/post/Czeo1X-BLAd

tstrimple 3y ago
The tires seem overinflated for the environment. I bet that alone would have made a huge difference in that climb.
Krasnol 3y ago
I doubt any potential customer of this monstrosity will ever go up or down a dirt hill.

dreamcompiler 3y ago

With software-controlled motors there should be no slippage whatsoever. I think Tesla is only doing this to make the numbers look slightly better.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]