Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Guest INASNT

I need a few calculations which i could do myself but i cbf getting out notes or books to work em out.

Questions :

If u were travelling at 130km/h for 800m how long (seconds) would it take to travel that distance?

How long would it take to come to a complete stop from 130km/h and how many meters to stop in a normal VT commodore V6?

How many seconds would a VT commodore exec take to accelerate to 130km/h and and how many meters would it take for it get to 130km/h?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/41150-questions-for-the-maths-gurus/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes you could work out the stopping distance/time but there are many things that are required, weight, brake size, caliper dimensions, brake pad material and others as well i think, not worth the effort really

same for the acceleration, many factors that affect the time and probably wouldnt be overly accurate

Guest Munky

22.153846...... seconds to go 800 metres

To do this just work out how many metres per second the car is travelling at (its speed / 3.6)

Then divide 800 by the figure you get from the above calculation.

Basically its just a case of manipulating the simple identity

Velocity = Distance / Time once you get the velocity in m/s

its pretty hard to do the acceleration question without some figures to go with it (ill look for some)

Guest Munky

How many seconds would a VT commodore exec take to accelerate to 130km/h and and how many meters would it take for it get to 130km/h?

Using the figures of a supercharged 5.7L V8 Commie VT (So it's inaccurate - I couldnt find figures for the one u specified)

Assuming it accelerates at constant acceleration, and using the figure of 5.89s 0-100kph

v = u + at

0 = 100 + 5.89a

therefore a = approx. 17 km/s

So now using v = u + at again

130 = 0 + 17t

therefore t = about 7.64 seconds

Now just doing a simple calculation of distance travelled = 1/2vt

The distance travelled is about 138 metres

I think that should be right but I havent done any mechanics/physics questions for about 7 months (since I finished hsc) It sounds right though (at least for a supercharged 5.7L v8)

I think you'll find that you can't do the stopping question without a figure on the deceleration figures of a commie.

Guest Munky

If u go by 1/4 times for a exec commo dont they do 16 in the 1/4, but at what speed?

It's almost impossible to figure this out because once your doing 100km/h obviously your car won't accelerate at the same rate as it was for 0 - 100. So its speed might only increase by 40km/h in the last 10 seconds of the 16 secs (as opposed to the 100 km/h it increased in the first 5.98 seconds if ur using the supercharged specs)

That's why the original calculation probably isnt very accurate either, since I just took the average rate of acceleration and assumed it was constant for the entire 0 - 100 (then kept assuming it was constant till 130km/h) In reality it would take longer since the car won't increase in speed as quickly as it did off the mark (ie. the rate of acceleration will drop so that the rate of acceleration by 130km/h is no longer 17km/s^2)

Someone get clocked by a NON-RADAR-EQUIPPED police vehicle huh?

Sounds like you're trying to work out if they were following you for long enough to get an accurate guesstimation of your vehicles speed... That and they must have been going in the other direction when they saw you...

Am I close?

Good luck dude.

Adrian

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...