Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-30-2005, 01:24 AM   #1
HugoMax
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1
Question 0 to 60 in 6.2sec

hey guys...i got a question...

0 to 60 miles per hour in 6.2 seconds translates into what numerical value with the units meters/seconds^(2)? (seconds squared)

so 0-60mi/h in 6.2 sec --> ___ m/s^2 ???

thanks!!!!!
HugoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2005, 02:38 AM   #2
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
Well, this is indeed a terrible question because a car does not maintain the same acceleration for any period of time (acceleration per unit time = jerk). But, if we do assume a steady state acceleration for a delta of 60mph (the car must start at 0 m/s^2, and then increase it's acceleration from there, so there's another major error). But, if we assume a car is already traveling at a certain rate of acceleration, then we decide that we want to continue that rate of acceleration for a delta velocity of 60mph, and we achieve that delta in 6.2 seconds, we would have been accelerating at 4.326 m/s^2.
__________________
Build 'em Light and Wind 'em Tight.
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2005, 07:15 AM   #3
NizmoFreak
CF Newbie
 
NizmoFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Fort Myers Florida
Posts: 17
wow.. all this makes me feel really dumb
__________________
NizmoFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2005, 07:19 AM   #4
mx3_monster
im completely sane
 
mx3_monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Racine,WI
Posts: 646
me too
__________________
Member of the STi Fan Club, The Post Whore Club, And The Nobody in Particular FAN CLUB


"I wish my lawn was EMO so it would cut itself!"
mx3_monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2005, 08:31 AM   #5
salimander13
Teach me, I'm learning
 
salimander13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: southern cali
Posts: 1,072
haha don't you just love phsyics can't wait till I get back into that
__________________
salimander13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2006, 04:37 PM   #6
theman352001
--- Voice of Reason ---
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 893
The units are not the same so there is no direct conversion.

0 to 60 miles/hour would convert to:

0 to 96.5 kilometers/hour (multiply miles by 1.609)

If you want that number in meters / second you need to multiply by 1/3600 hours/second and 1000 Meters / Kilometer.

This would give you: 0 to 26.8 meters/second

Now if you're looking for the acceration then you could do a simple calculation by dividing that number by the 6.2 seconds but this will only give you a rough number idea of acceleration.

That number would be: 4.32 meters/second^2
__________________


Come to Wisconsin and smell our dairy air.
theman352001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 07:48 AM   #7
Stem
HAHA Im Stem!
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 637
i think someones stuck on a physics question
Stem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 12:07 PM   #8
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
The units are not the same so there is no direct conversion.

0 to 60 miles/hour would convert to:

0 to 96.5 kilometers/hour (multiply miles by 1.609)

If you want that number in meters / second you need to multiply by 1/3600 hours/second and 1000 Meters / Kilometer.

This would give you: 0 to 26.8 meters/second

Now if you're looking for the acceration then you could do a simple calculation by dividing that number by the 6.2 seconds but this will only give you a rough number idea of acceleration.

That number would be: 4.32 meters/second^2

INCORRECT!!! of course they are the same.....

Read Bino's post ... he summed it up perfectly. You can convert it to average m/s/s acceleration, just not constant.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2006, 02:48 PM   #9
theman352001
--- Voice of Reason ---
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
INCORRECT!!! of course they are the same.....

Read Bino's post ... he summed it up perfectly. You can convert it to average m/s/s acceleration, just not constant.
Bino and I are stating the same thing. I just didn't use the word "average" which I probably should have. (brain fart)

I also read his use of the word "translation" as meaning "conversion" and not "calculation". There is no direct "conversion" (between miles/hour & meters/second^2) but there is a "calculation" which I then provided for him. The calculation, as Bino pointed out, provides average acceleration and not instantaneous acceleration at any particular point in time.

So then, what is incorrect?
.
__________________


Come to Wisconsin and smell our dairy air.
theman352001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2006, 01:00 AM   #10
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
Bino and I are stating the same thing. I just didn't use the word "average" which I probably should have. (brain fart)

I also read his use of the word "translation" as meaning "conversion" and not "calculation". There is no direct "conversion" (between miles/hour & meters/second^2) but there is a "calculation" which I then provided for him. The calculation, as Bino pointed out, provides average acceleration and not instantaneous acceleration at any particular point in time.

So then, what is incorrect?
.
The conversion is not mph to m/s/s, it is from 0-60mph to m/s/s. There is a difference. Sure, it's average acceleration, but it's still measurable in m/s/s.

You have to remember, he did not say: "what's 60mph in m/s/s?" ... he said: "what's 0-60mph in m/s/s?". This is an acceleration (if taken as an average). Therefore it is a conversion, not a calculation ... once again, provided you qualify this as an average acceleration.

Let's sum up:

KEY POINT: If you take 0-60mph as a constant or average, then it IS an acceleration, and thus can be measured in metres per second squared.

COUNTER POINT: Cars do not have constant acceleration, so 0-60 is merely a time measure of how quickly a car can get to 60 from a standing start, and isn't really quantifiable in m/s/s units.

So, I think we're both right, it all just depends on whether you make the constant/average acceleration assumption or not.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2006, 02:14 AM   #11
Bino
Written Off
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, Oregon, USA
Posts: 844
Congratulations, you've all managed to finally hit every point I lined out in the first reply to this post.
__________________
Build 'em Light and Wind 'em Tight.
Bino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2006, 03:14 AM   #12
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bino
Congratulations, you've all managed to finally hit every point I lined out in the first reply to this post.
You'll also note that I stated as much in MY first post....
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
Read Bino's post ... he summed it up perfectly. You can convert it to average m/s/s acceleration, just not constant..
.....
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2006, 03:57 AM   #13
Mk3golfer
CF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 107
I knew that...
__________________
It was broken when you gave it to me...
Mk3golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.