I get it, there is not a reliable way to convert 0-60 ft to 0-60 mph but is there a formula that can help me speculate how much my 0-60mph times would be?
I was looking at here:
http://216.58.239.33/SSM.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and more specifically here:
http://216.58.239.33/timeslip/55SSM.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and I saw that in one of the times I did:
TIME 45.236
RT 0.521
60ft 2.227
(This was on the cold Saturday evening... no chance to run on Sunday)
Since I have no perception of what that means I wanted to estimate what 0-60 mph time might be...
Thanks,
Chris
0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
Moderator: Mike Simanyi
- Christos Adam
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
- Club: CASOC
- Car#: 550
- Location: passing you up...
- Contact:
0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem
- Christos Adam
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
- Club: CASOC
- Car#: 550
- Location: passing you up...
- Contact:
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
I guess 0-60 ft is super short to give an indication of anything significant... as an example the monstrous SSM RX-7 and the civics were having similar 0-60 ft time but I'm willing to bet that the results would be significantly different for the 0-60 mph and 1/4 times when the wheel spin won't be a big issue
.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem
- Don Salyers
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
- Club: No$
- Car#: 42
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
Chris, here is a page that has almost every calculation except the one you want.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don
http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculators.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don
- George Schilling
- Club Representative
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
- Club: CASOC
- Car#: 66
- Location: Lakewood, CA
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
I can't see how that calculation would be possible Chris. Too many variables.Christos Adam wrote:I get it, there is not a reliable way to convert 0-60 ft to 0-60 mph but is there a formula that can help me speculate how much my 0-60mph times would be?
I was looking at here:
http://216.58.239.33/SSM.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and more specifically here:
http://216.58.239.33/timeslip/55SSM.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and I saw that in one of the times I did:
TIME 45.236
RT 0.521
60ft 2.227
(This was on the cold Saturday evening... no chance to run on Sunday)
Since I have no perception of what that means I wanted to estimate what 0-60 mph time might be...
Thanks,
Chris
CASOC Autocross Club, 1984 Van Diemen RF-84, 1600cc Kent, Hewland Mk9, Centerline 2 pc. wheels, Hoosier R25B, SuperTrapp, Zimmer Alloclassic titanium left hip w/Metasul LDH chromium-cobalt lg dia head
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
If you assume that you can continue to accelerate at the same rate all the way to 60 mph (which is true for very powerful cars that are traction-limited), then there is a simple solution.
Let s1 = 60 ft = 18.3 m
t1 = 2.227 s (your elapsed time to travel 60 ft)
a - the acceleration (assumed to be const)
v2 = 60 mph = 96.54 km/h = 26.8 m/s
t2 - the time in s to reach 60 mph
From high school:
s1 = 1/2 *a*t1^2
v2 = a*t2
Solving for t2:
t2 = 1/2 * v2 * t1^2 / s1 = 3.63 s
This is the lowest limit. Given a 0-60 ft time, you won't be able to reach 60 mph in less time than that. If you didn't have to shift in the first 60 ft, but you expect a gearshift on your way to 60 mph, then you must add the time for the gearshift - at least 0.3 s for a 3-pedal manual transmission.
Let s1 = 60 ft = 18.3 m
t1 = 2.227 s (your elapsed time to travel 60 ft)
a - the acceleration (assumed to be const)
v2 = 60 mph = 96.54 km/h = 26.8 m/s
t2 - the time in s to reach 60 mph
From high school:
s1 = 1/2 *a*t1^2
v2 = a*t2
Solving for t2:
t2 = 1/2 * v2 * t1^2 / s1 = 3.63 s
This is the lowest limit. Given a 0-60 ft time, you won't be able to reach 60 mph in less time than that. If you didn't have to shift in the first 60 ft, but you expect a gearshift on your way to 60 mph, then you must add the time for the gearshift - at least 0.3 s for a 3-pedal manual transmission.
- Marshall Grice
- Former CSCC Overall Champion
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
- Club: CASOC
- Car#: 11
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
you'd be way closer assuming 2 levels of constant acceleration, 1st gear and 2nd gear, with the eqn's split at your shift point speed. you can take a pretty good guess at your accel values for each gear if you know your torque curve and overall gearing.Mihail Milkov wrote:If you assume that you can continue to accelerate at the same rate all the way to 60 mph (which is true for very powerful cars that are traction-limited), then there is a simple solution.
Let s1 = 60 ft = 18.3 m
t1 = 2.227 s (your elapsed time to travel 60 ft)
a - the acceleration (assumed to be const)
v2 = 60 mph = 96.54 km/h = 26.8 m/s
t2 - the time in s to reach 60 mph
From high school:
s1 = 1/2 *a*t1^2
v2 = a*t2
Solving for t2:
t2 = 1/2 * v2 * t1^2 / s1 = 3.63 s
This is the lowest limit. Given a 0-60 ft time, you won't be able to reach 60 mph in less time than that. If you didn't have to shift in the first 60 ft, but you expect a gearshift on your way to 60 mph, then you must add the time for the gearshift - at least 0.3 s for a 3-pedal manual transmission.
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
Wouldn't it just be easier to get a stopwatch and accelerate to 60?
==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
- Marshall Grice
- Former CSCC Overall Champion
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:27 am
- Club: CASOC
- Car#: 11
Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
hey you watch your mouth! it's not about being easier, it's about wasting time at work!Kurt Ra wrote:Wouldn't it just be easier to get a stopwatch and accelerate to 60?
the evo averages .9g's in 1st gear and .45g in second, with measured 60' times of ~1.7sec and 0-60 times ~3.9sec

Re: 0-60 ft times -> 0-60 mph conversion
Sorry...forgot I was talking to an engineerMarshall Grice wrote:hey you watch your mouth! it's not about being easier, it's about wasting time at work!Kurt Ra wrote:Wouldn't it just be easier to get a stopwatch and accelerate to 60?

==============
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.
Oversteer is better than understeer because you don't see the tree you're hitting.