Car Forums 0 to 60 in 6.2sec
 FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 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...

 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 01:59 PM. Contact Us - Car Forums - Top