| From | Message |
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/27/2002
14:33:14
|
 Subject: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
People often ask what kind of 0-60 time a vehicle runs. Since I frequent the racetrack, I view that question somewhat differently. There is a direct correlation between the 60' time and the 0-60 mph time. Timeslips are incrementals for 60' time, 1/8 mile time and mph achieved. I found a website that showed the mph achieved at the 60' mark based upon the time. After plotting about 30 different timeslips from a range of vehicles, I came up with a very generic ballpark table that compares the two.
2.3 second 60' time = 35.5 mph @60' = 7.0 second 0-60 time
2.2 second 60' time = 37.1 mph @60' = 6.5 second 0-60 time
2.1 second 60' time = 38.9 mph @60' = 5.9 second 0-60 time
2.0 second 60' time = 40.9 mph @60' = 5.2 second 0-60 time
1.9 second 60' time = 43.0 mph @60' = 4.6 second 0-60 time
1.8 second 60' time = 45.5 mph @60' = 4.0 second 0-60 time
1.7 second 60' time = 48.1 mph @60' = 3.4 second 0-60 time
1.6 second 60' time = 51.1 mph @60' = 2.9 second 0-60 time
1.5 second 60' time = 54.5 mph @60' = 2.2 second 0-60 time
1.4 second 60' time = 58.4 mph @60' = 1.5 second 0-60 time
1.36 second 60' time = 60.0 mph @60' = 1.36 second 0-60 time
1.3 second 60' time = 62.9 mph @60' = 1.2 second 0-60 time
1.2 second 60' time = 68.1 mph @60' = 1.1 second 0-60 time
1.1 second 60' time = 74.3 mph @60' = 0.9 second 0-60 time
1.0 second 60' time = 81.8 mph @60' = 0.7 second 0-60 time
If you've ever raced your vehicle, you should have a pretty good idea of your 0-60 time.
How fast are you?
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/27/2002
14:40:57
|  RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
I'm clocking a traction-hampered 6.7 to 6.0 in the 0-60mph race (apparently).
Nice work, Duner.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/27/2002
21:28:46
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
The problem with a 0-60 time is that it doesn't not necessarily indicate what car would be leading at 60 MPH if they were racing. It is completely possible for a 6.0 sec 0-60 car to be behind another 6.5 sec 0-60 car. That is why time to distance is a better measure then time to speed. The key is the "slower" car may be so much quicker form 0-40, that it gets such a big lead that when the "faster" car starts really digging and hits 60 MPH it could still be behind the "slower" car that still hasn't even reached 60 MPH. The tabe works but probably only for a specific design, like RWD or non-turbo. If you start comparing two completely different cars like a heavy, high power, NA, RWD, to a light weight, AWD, turbo, it's not going to be telling as to which is really the faster car. I think it must be the press that pushes these times so much as the 1/4 mile usually involves speeds that most drivers seldom reach so it's less meaningful to them. They should start using 1/8 mile times, and 60 foot times to judge a cars acceleration ability.
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
08:34:49
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Dude, what the F are you talking about?
|
Dr0p0ff
GenIII
3/28/2002
08:37:38
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
ROFLMAO... damn alex.. lol.. phew.. ok.. i'm ok.. ::catches breath:: ok... that was much more funny than it should've been.. need sleep.. dammit..
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
10:16:08
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Heh. Okay, that was harsh.
The reason that 0-60 has become the mainstream benchmark is that usually when you merge onto the highway, you are sort of aiming for 60 mph (if you're an old man in a Buick). Therefore, the advertising is aimed at the person who wants to know how fast that new car will get up to (cough) highway speeds.
That advertising misses the mark when it comes to drag racers who could give half a poop about 60 mph. 60 mph is how fast your rear tires should be spinning in the water box after you pop the shifter into second gear.
But Duner has actually worked out some math that lets people who've raced for years (and know their 60' times) to relate to people who watch too much TV (and car ads).
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
12:19:09
| That 60' is where it's at!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hersbird - OK, you lost me on that one part.....
If two cars took off at the same time, the car that got to 60 mph in 6.0 seconds would be ahead of the car that took 6.5 seconds to get to the same speed. The cars would be a half a second apart. At 60 mph they are travelling 88fps. Or assuming they both got to 60 mph and held that speed, the car that got there in 6.0 seconds would be 44' or more than 2 car/truck lengths ahead of the one that took 6.5 seconds to get to the same speed. No matter how you slice it - the car that accelerated to 60 the quickest is the one that's in front. That doesn't mean that the slower accelerating car won't pass him at a later time....
If you had a car that could launch with a 1.36 second 60' time and then drive it at a constant 60 mph (i know - highly improbable), it would still turn the 1/4 mile in 15.67 seconds @ 60 mph. If you were in the other lane and launched with a 2.36 60' time and ran a 15.67 @ 88 mph - it would take you the entire length of the 1/4 mile to make up for that deficit at the 60' mark, even though your speed is 28 mph higher at the end. The car with the quicker 60' time and thus the quicker 0-60 time was ahead the entire time.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
21:15:59
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Lets make it real obvious and not talk about 0-60 but use a measured distance as a benchmark for who wins the race (imagine that). Lets just pick an 1/8 mile race. So now is it possible for truck A to run the 1/8 mile and have a ET of say 11.2 sec at 58 MPH. Then lets say truck B can run the 1/8 mile in 11.4 but reaches a speed of 62 MPH. So it then is possible that truck B was actually already going 60 MPH at the 11.2 sec point and therefore just ran 0-60 faster then truck B (which at the 11.2 sec point still was going only 58 MPH) but lost the race. This is all with identical reaction times. It is possible that a truck that is slower 0-60 can be ahead of the feaster 0-60 truck, it's just that the "faster" truck is gaining, not necessarily leading. It doesn't happen in every case, it's just a possibility, especially if you compare something with horrible traction to something that has awesome traction. Or something that has instant power to something that has a lot of lag. The only real way to measure performance is time to distance, not time to speed.
|
CW
GenIII
3/28/2002
21:42:37
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Not to get myself in the middle of this but a car accelerates pretty linearly. If the time to 60 is less, the distance is less.
2001 4.7 RC 5sp 3.92 LSD
Click on thumbnail for mods.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
21:45:06
| Hypothetical Extremes!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hahahahaha Listen to us! I pick an arbitrary but quite unrealistic 1.36 60' time to try and make my point - and you pick an equally rediculous vehicle that only gets to 58 mph in the 1/8th mile to try and make yours. Is that goofy or what? hahaha
OK, so time to distance it is. All cars from this day forward should be tested for 60' times as well as 1/8th mile times and speeds. Deal?
I still think that the vehicle that's quickest to the 60' mark will be quickest on the 0-60 mph measurement..... that is of course if it's capable of achieving more than 58 mph! LOL
|
YJ
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
22:30:10
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Sorry Hersbird. I see where you're going with your concept but without whipping out the ol' TI-85 to map out the sin/cotangent calculation, Duner and CW are correct.
I did see where you were going with the concept and it did make me bust out the calculator and pencil/paper, but in the end... well, you know.
Thanks for the brain-jog though! ;) I don't think I've used it in a while...and I'm not talking about the calculator. ;)
Neat post,
YJ
Black 2K QC 4x4 4.7 3.92 KVT910DVD
Black 91 YJ 4LHO Borla and Lifted
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/28/2002
23:15:37
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
You don't have to say it's the 1/8 mile, pick any point where a average truck would reach 60 MPH say the 1/10 of a mile if you want the number too seem more realistic. Point is it is possible. YJ why would you think it's not? If it's possible for two truck to run the 1/4 mile and one to get a faster ET but a slower MPH, then it was the quicker truck but the slower to that MPH! It happens every day at every drag race! You just are talking about 0-90 MPH or 0-100 MPH or 0-300 mph, so why not 0-60?. Point is two cars can leave the line with identical reaction times and the car with the faster MPH doesn't always win the race. One truck can reach 60 quicker, but unless it was true that it reached every other MPH first as well, it may or may not be in front of the "slower" truck. Your guys way only works if you assume the acceleration is linear, or that both trucks accelerate on the same curve.
|
Turbofreak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
00:34:07
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
This is true 'bird!!!!
Ok, ummm .. here is a good comparison for us all. An old camaro with nitrous runs 11.48 @ 117mph. A newer turbo supra( slightly modified) runs 12.20's @ 128 mph. The new camaro obviously won the drag race. WHY? Because his average MPH and acceleration rate was higher than the Supra's. I think this is what 'bird is trying to say.... But, don't mess with a Supra on the road at high speeds, they will smoke pretty much any car they get ahold of on top end, high speed running for any length of time, except for maybe a Nissan Skyline GTR, but that is another story...
GOOD POINT 'Bird!!!!!!!!
This is the same reason why a car with less horsepower and less torque can beat a stronger car of equal weight. IT is all in the little details. If a Weak car has good torque converter and transmission and rear gearing that keeps it in it's peak area of the torque curve; even though it may not post a high MPH, it will be much quicker than the stronger car with a less than ideal setup of gearing, transmission, and torque converter stall speed (or rpm at clutch engagement).
This is drag racing and why Our trucks are beating up on Celicas and HOndas, they lack torque and proper gearing for good off the line acceleration.
Later,
Ryan
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
01:47:05
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Hahahaha
I guess you guys must have totally missed that whole part about the 60' incremental.
The table is a prediction based upon the fact that for the most part, if a vehicle is at a drag strip and is racing - if they are capable of generating a good 60' time they can generally back it up with continued acceleration. I mean afterall, if you are already going 40 mph by the time you are only 60' out of the gate, and you are already 1 car length ahead by then and are already going 5 mph faster than the other guy - your odds of beating him to 60 mph are pretty friggin' good!
I guess the table SHOULD have been labeled as:
If you CAN'T LAUNCH FOR SH*T or you spin your tires for the first 60' and then hook up and hit a 200 shot of nitrous - please DISREGARD this table because the table was compiled from timeslips of people who were ACTUALLY TRYING to hook up and get the best times possible. It was compiled from ACTUAL, REAL WORLD time runs and not some totally ficticious, make believe, what-if type of scenarios. That was pretty much the reason for not using 60' times that were slower than 2.3s. Generally any runs on the timeslips that were slower than 2.3 60' times were either total screw-ups or were from 25 second vehicles that were going so slow that their performance fell off the scale. Basically, anything slower than a 2.3 60' time covered such a wide range of speeds at the other incrementals that any plotting of them was without merit because the range of performance was spread so very wide.
All this keyboard racing is giving me a headache..... I think I'm gonna have to go to the track and practice some more 4.5 second 0-60 mph runs.... or was that 1.8 60' times.... I forget now!
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/29/2002
04:58:01
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
here is something to think about for time/distance/power;
when i was using a 75 shot i ran a 1/8th in 9.6 seconds @ 80 mph
when i was use the 100 shot i ran it in 8.95 seconds but @ 78 mph...
but i also didn't use the 100 shot off of the line and i spun a tire real bad through second gear in both situations.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
08:35:50
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Duner, you're killing me. Maybe I should've wired up a 200-shot since I can't launch for Sh*t!
Hahaaaahaaaaaaa......
One of these days, some of these other people will go to the strip and get a time slip or two in their hands and maaaaa-a-a-a-y-b-e it will finally dawn on them.
Until then I'll see you guys at the BIG END.
By the way, I've got a guy offering me a set of 28x11.5 ET Streets for $125. My 60' may be a little lower by the end of the weekend!! Hah!
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
11:04:58
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Alex - If there's anything left on them that's a good price! You can count on getting almost 2 tenths out of them compared to most street tires. C'Mon.... we wanna hear what you got that 60' down to!
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
11:21:55
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
I've seen them and they have plenty of life left. What kills me is I really wanted the 26x10.5 tire. I have the 3.55 rear, and that would help the rear gear out (at least a little bit). That could be worth a few more tenths, but I dont' know anybody with a set of used 26x10.5's for $125......
What's a guy to do???? Heh.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/29/2002
12:35:38
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Alex,
that's a very good price... new they cost a lot more than that a piece.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
litlpunisher
GenIII
3/29/2002
13:08:41
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
My best 60' was a 1.8?s. Itis hard to remember when I have about 100 plus time slips but that was about it. Thing to remember what ever you gain in the 60' will double in the the 1/4. Ex if you gain .2 seconds in the 60' you'll probably gain.4 sec in the 1/4. 60' is very important. Nice work with the table Duner
98 Dakota
Bottle fed 340ci
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
13:25:07
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh yeah.... it's a sweet price, but now I've got to start taking my jack & breaker bar & all that tire changin stuff to the track. I don't feel like taking my Crapsman 3-ton floor jack, so now I've got to go to Poop Boys and buy a mini jack etc.....
Damn this is a lot of work, this whole "go fast" thing that we do.
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/29/2002
14:24:41
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
i am too cheap to by a new jack... i just bust out the old scissor jack and have at it.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
14:30:09
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
You may be too cheap, but I'm too lazy to do each tire individually. I wanna just raise the pumpkin and do it all in one shot.
Lazy & Cheap. We're just pitiful, ain't we?
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/29/2002
14:37:02
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
aren't we just typical americans? he he he
that's what my brother does with his camaro but i spray some stuff on my tires to get them sticky and change the tires while it dries.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
14:50:05
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
I thought you were supposed to dump that "stuff" in a puddle on the pavement in front of each tire then do a nice brakes-on burnout in the puddles. HeeHeeHeeeee....
I still gotta buy the damn tires before I can worry about VHT, but my taxes are due back soon, so it's only a matter of time. Leach Burn, sticky tires, 3" cat...... Then it's hide & wait for Hughes to get their 4.7 cams together. Hope we'll see some results soon.......
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/29/2002
15:14:34
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
the local track around here (1/8th) does have the burnout box but i have better luck with the extra VHT with my open diff. i "coated" the tires with it and did a nasty burn out... later that night i did another burnout at work and when i left in the morning i put my truck in reverse and it wouldn't move... i had to hit the gas to get it "unstuck" from the spot i did the burnout... pretty sweet! that tire is so sticky right now. i took it off and it still has little rocks and dirt all over it from a week ago.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
15:35:53
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Ever get that crap on your shoe? You'll stick to whatever you step on for about two weeks. Including the gas pedal.... oops!
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
15:50:20
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
I made the mistake of stacking my sticky slicks in the garage up against the wall. When I went to use them again they each ended up ripping about a 4" diameter patch of paint right off the wall! They were basically glued right to the wall. I won't do that again!
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/29/2002
15:59:11
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
Hahahhaaaaa!
Kind of like painting the white stripe on the sidewall to see if they're spinning..... Just doing it the hard way. HeeHeeeeee
|
Crusty
GenIII
3/31/2002
22:34:01
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
IntenseDak39- I just read an article about carbon fiber hoods. It was a M3 however, but I know you are interested. It saved 28lbs over stock, a nice difference. It is in this months European Car.
Sorry I was off the subject.
2002 4x4
Modification Donations Accepted at Paypal.com
|
IntenseDak39
*GenIII*
3/31/2002
23:28:45
| RE: 0-60 time vs 60' times
IP: Logged
Message:
hey thanx for the info! but carbon fiber sounds expensive... i would like to find someone who builds a fiberglass lift off hood... i figured a single layer fiberglass hood would weigh the least.
intensedak39
http://www.geocities.com/intensedak39/index.html?1015106010330
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
