Car Forums 0 to 60 in 6.2sec
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 12-30-2005, 01:24 AM #1 HugoMax CF Newbie   Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1 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!!!!!
 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.
 12-30-2005, 07:15 AM #3 NizmoFreak CF Newbie     Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Fort Myers Florida Posts: 17 wow.. all this makes me feel really dumb __________________
 12-30-2005, 07:19 AM #4 mx3_monster im completely sane     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!"
 12-30-2005, 08:31 AM #5 salimander13 Teach me, I'm learning     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 __________________
 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.
 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
01-04-2006, 12:07 PM   #8
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo

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.

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.

01-09-2006, 01:00 AM   #10
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo

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.

 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.
01-09-2006, 03:14 AM   #12
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo

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.

 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...

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Search this Thread: Advanced Search Display Modes Linear Mode

 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home General Discussions     General Chat     Motorsports     Off Topic Technical Discussions     Repairs & Maintenance Vehicle Specific     Domestic Cars     Asian Imports     European Imports     Classic Cars Community Central     Marketplace     Feedback & Suggestions

 All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM. Contact Us - Car Forums - Top