0-100 Km/h Times Are Useless, So Stop Asking For Them

[mad082]

the ford rs2000 held the record in the late 80's early 90's. the current record for 0-100mph-0 is held by the a Ultima GTR (no its not a nissan) at 9.8 seconds. we previously held by a ferrari enzo at 10.9.

[dangerous_daveo]

Electric cars aren't gay. Have you seen that new Lexus forget what model it is, but's a big v8 with electric engine as well and it goes so damn hard and quite good on fuel for a big v8. They look awesom as well.

I'll try and dig up a website on it.

Its a V6. 'Power' of a V8 with 'economy' of a 4cyl. But its MILES better than that pyruis thing. Or I think so from what I have read and seen so far.

I still dont get this 100% though.

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

[PSI_GTSII]

Basically

When talking 0-100kmh races, the 'KMH' is the Constant and the 'Distance' reached varies.

When talking 400m races the 'Distance' is the Constant and the 'KMH' reached Varies.

Simple......

Edited June 15, 2006 by PSI_GTSII

[ferni]

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Imagine Car B is REALLY laggy, and only does 10k/h for the first 9 seconds, then for the last second full boost comes on crazy hard and it flys from 10k/h to 100/kh in that last second, the first 9 seconds it only covered 40meters because it was going so slow, then the last few metres it speed up to 100k/h..... covered it really quick..

(maths aren't right there just trying to make the point).

[Big Rizza]

So car A travels 100m to get to 100kmh and takes 10 seconds

Car B takes 50m to get to 100kmh but also does in it 10 seconds

Is that it?

Im trying to get my head around that... Can someone explain it differently please.

Think of it like this. Both cars accelerate for 10 seconds. Car one accelerates very quickly to almost 100km/h in the first one second, then slowly accelerates to 100km/h over the next 9 seconds. It spends most of its 10 seconds at high speed. Car two accelerates very slowly for the first nine seconds, the quickly accelerates to 100km/h at the end. So it spends most of its 10 seconds at low speeds.

Both cars will reach 100km/h at the 10 second mark, but car one will have travelled more distance because it has spent more time at higher speeds than car two, so the AVERAGE speed over 10 seconds was higher.

This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

Edited June 15, 2006 by Big Rizza

[tim_08]

This is an extreme example, but it applies to real world situations - a more reallistic example might be a stock GTR (all wheel drive) and modified GTST (rear wheel drive). These might have the same 0-100km/h time of 5 seconds, but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

If that makes any sense to anyone...

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well?

[Big Rizza]

"but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover more distance before the 100km/h speed is reached. "

Shouldnt it be,

but the GTR will launch harder, and will hence get ahead quickly and cover less distance before the 100km/h speed is reached.

Or perhaps i do not grasp this concept real well?

The GTR will launch harder, so it will be ahead of the GTST. The leading car will have covered more distance than the trailing car (otherwise it would be behind the other car, right?). Therefore, the GTR will have covered more distance than the GTST, and would be leadin the race. The GTST accelerates harder than the GTR once its tyres hook up properly, so it manages to reach 100km/h at the same TIME, but the GTR is already ahead by several car lengths after the brutal launch, so it has still covered more distance.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Big Rizza

[mad082]

but there is also a chance that both cars could do 100kmh in same time and distance. it would require 1 to have good low down power and poor top end, and the other to have the exact opposite.

[Cubes]

So what your saying Big Rizza is Torque wins races.

Now I just need to work on getting it down through the rear wheels.

[inissane]

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples

[Busky2k]

I never liked 100kmh times because with high powered vehicles it comes down to traction more than anything. Rolling start, bring em on!

[Big Rizza]

So what your saying Big Rizza is Torque wins races.

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

[govich]

The turbo car runs a 16.3 at 265.69km/h (see what I mean about unreallistic )

This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

[dangerous_daveo]

Im still really struggling with this hey. I'll work it out when I get home. I think I got it. I just need to get my head around the whole dont work out out with speed and time, work it out with DISTANCE and time.

Thanks fellas. This really should be basic for me.

[Cubes]

To some degree yes. All else equal, the torquier car will win. But just as power alone will not win races, torque alone doesn't win races either. The Mazda Bravo turbo diesel I occasionally drive for work makes more torque at 2000rpm than the RB20DET powered Skyline I own makes at its peak, but with a peak power of just eighty-something kilowatts at 3500rpm, there's no way it would keep up with the skyline.

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story.

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver.

[Big Rizza]

im not so sure about that last example in this context, the initial example is simplified and is correct and interesting but it fails to model traction off the line, it assumes all have perfect traction

that last example of the gtr vs gtst attempts to incorporate traction/launch and is confusing peoples

Well, if you don't like it, ignore it! If the original example works in your head better, use that!

Edited June 15, 2006 by Big Rizza

[Big Rizza]

This is only because your turbo car's speed increases exponentially (ie. it keeps accelerating faster and faster the more speed it piles up) - a parabola doesn't even come close to modelling a turbo car's speed over time it might be right initially because of the wheelspin but it won't be right afterwards.

I DID say that extrapolating the formulas I chose wouldn't be reallistic It is just as unreallistic for the family car, which accelerates at a constant and linear rate for all eternity.

[Big Rizza]

Which leads me on to...

AVERAGE POWER!

Throw that Mazda Bravo behind a CVT trans and it might be a different story.

But yes as I've said before, its the complete package that matters.

Power, gearing, weight, traction and driver.

Even with the CVT, I doubt the Bravo would keep with the skyline. The Bravo has a peak power of eighty-something kilowatts as I said, and I reckon that even with gear changes, rev changes etc. my peak power of 160+kw would result in greater average power. Plus skyline is lighter .

[Birnie]

I understand what you're getting at.

I had an argument in High School with someone about this very thing. Had a pic of the graph you gave and you had to say which car was in front when they all hot 100kms/hr.

It's funny, nearly 90% of people thought they were a the same position! Geeze!

Anyway.....0-100's and quarter miles are good benchmarks..but to get what i think you want, you would like to see a 'How far can a car travel in 10secs..or 20sec' from a standing start (or rolling, or adapt further)

Yeah???

But if you did have that, people could then argue the opposite.. "10sec distance measurements mean nothing, doesn't show how fast it would do a quater mile!" and then show another graph and quote a few formulas.

Gotta do your own research i guess and go from there

..and while I'm thinking about it more (gotta stop soon)

Your comparing apples oranges and lemons.

Everyone here is pretty much apples, apples so it does make sense to compare

Catchya

Birnie

[dangerous_daveo]

Well to me I always thought you could compair fruits.

I mean apple is green or red, oranges are well orange. There is a comparision, its fair... I never understood the problem with it. Thats what comparisions are meant to do