Attn: Math Majors, 0-60 time and distance question
OK here goes nothin.
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant. but this should make for a ballpark figure at best.
your average velocity was 30 mph. times 6.1 seconds (aka .00169444444 hours) equals .050833333333333333 miles. times 5280 feet per mile is 268.399999999999 feet.
i think that's it if im wrong feel freee to correect me.
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant. but this should make for a ballpark figure at best.
your average velocity was 30 mph. times 6.1 seconds (aka .00169444444 hours) equals .050833333333333333 miles. times 5280 feet per mile is 268.399999999999 feet.
i think that's it if im wrong feel freee to correect me.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Stopher »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OK here goes nothin.
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant. but this should make for a ballpark figure at best.
your average velocity was 30 mph. times 6.1 seconds (aka .00169444444 hours) equals .050833333333333333 miles. times 5280 feet per mile is 268.399999999999 feet.
i think that's it if im wrong feel freee to correect me.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
shiet...how can i correct if i have no idea how the hell u got that answer....butttttt
it sounds good to me
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant. but this should make for a ballpark figure at best.
your average velocity was 30 mph. times 6.1 seconds (aka .00169444444 hours) equals .050833333333333333 miles. times 5280 feet per mile is 268.399999999999 feet.
i think that's it if im wrong feel freee to correect me.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
shiet...how can i correct if i have no idea how the hell u got that answer....butttttt
it sounds good to me
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Stopher »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you need to know the function that describes its acceleration.... it is NOT constant
i wouldn't believe that 268.39 feet is even "ballpark" accurate, as the quarter mile time for a stock dc5 is ~15.5, give or take a few tenths.... and the trap speed for the 1/4 is usually like 95ish mph, again give or take a few..
so it takes 1320 feet for it to get to ~95mph.... IF acceleration was constant, you could set up a proportion to see how many feet @ 60mph, and you'd get ~833 feet........
While 833 is probably not even "ballpark" accurate, I'd say it's much more accurate than 268.39
the big assumption here is that accelleration is constant.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you need to know the function that describes its acceleration.... it is NOT constant
i wouldn't believe that 268.39 feet is even "ballpark" accurate, as the quarter mile time for a stock dc5 is ~15.5, give or take a few tenths.... and the trap speed for the 1/4 is usually like 95ish mph, again give or take a few..
so it takes 1320 feet for it to get to ~95mph.... IF acceleration was constant, you could set up a proportion to see how many feet @ 60mph, and you'd get ~833 feet........

While 833 is probably not even "ballpark" accurate, I'd say it's much more accurate than 268.39
ask car and driver. the correct answer (through math)would require alot of equations regarding tire compound, gear ratios, weather,and times.
I won't bother with math, here's a common sense approximation:
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.
Trending Topics
well ppl with kpro can give u the data 
acceleration is not constant but with kpro, i can give you a 40data points a second of my VSS reading. that'll approximate out a velocity curve which you can then use to approximate the actual position.

acceleration is not constant but with kpro, i can give you a 40data points a second of my VSS reading. that'll approximate out a velocity curve which you can then use to approximate the actual position.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rsxmachine »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I won't bother with math, here's a common sense approximation:
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.</TD></TR></TABLE>
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thanks for all of your comments. I'm trying to get out of a ticket. The ticket reads I was going 60 in a 35. I don't believe I was going that fast, and I also don't think it's possible even at WOT. The cop was traveling up a road I was turning left onto from a stop. The road quickly makes a right then is straight before it quickly heads left. As I was coming around the right turn, the cop was heading through the left portion. I know I was going faster than the posted speed, but 60? I was still far from catching up to the car that was in front of me in the left turn lane. The cop said he got me with radar. This confuses me a little because he was traveling in his car, and responding to an intersection. Why would he be tracking MPH? He was responding to a report that the lights at the intersection I was at were not working. Since it was mid-day in a busy spot, this would indicate I had to come to a complete stop before making my left. Now doing 0-60 not at WOT by a non-professional driver on a road that involves a complete left then almost a complete right I think would take longer than 6 seconds and 330 feet. I plan to measure the distances and take my findings to court.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rsxmachine »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I won't bother with math, here's a common sense approximation:
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Anybody got time slip photos they can post?
take a look at some 1/4 mile time slips of stock or near-stock RSXs. you'll notice that the elapsed time to hit the 330' mark is about the same as 0-60 mph time.
0-60 in 6.1 sec is very optimistic for a stock RSX-S btw.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Anybody got time slip photos they can post?
Good luck with the ticket!! Hopefully you'll end up on top...
As for the radar thing... if i'm wrong then someone please correct me...
Doesn't the car has to be stopped so the radar can have a surface to deflect off of??? Isn't that how the Radar detectors work by detecting the deflected signal that isn't strong enough to clock your speed??
That's how i thought their radar was used... I really don't know how their laser thing works either?
All in all he just sounds lick an a**hole pig to me...
As for the radar thing... if i'm wrong then someone please correct me... Doesn't the car has to be stopped so the radar can have a surface to deflect off of??? Isn't that how the Radar detectors work by detecting the deflected signal that isn't strong enough to clock your speed??
That's how i thought their radar was used... I really don't know how their laser thing works either?
All in all he just sounds lick an a**hole pig to me...
yeah... I'd say 0-60 in 6.1 stock is almost unreachable... I have tried. I would say 6.5 if you're good. When sport compact car did their "8 great rides" the Type S made it in there, and they said 0-60 was 7.2, but I think that is somewhat high or a bad driver... cause they also said 1/4 was 15.3 or something... which can be beat easily with a good driver.
oh yeah and to add to the topic... my calculations say that IF the car accelerated constantly... it would only have to cover a little less than 200 feet, so that is obviously NOT the case... this would be a very complex problem and I have no idea how to go about it... and I am an engineering student (only a freshman though).
oh yeah and to add to the topic... my calculations say that IF the car accelerated constantly... it would only have to cover a little less than 200 feet, so that is obviously NOT the case... this would be a very complex problem and I have no idea how to go about it... and I am an engineering student (only a freshman though).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




