Will 0-60 become completely meaningless?
Discussion
Before you jump in - I am not inferring that 0-60 is all there is to evaluate a car's performance, or that it is even of crucial importance - but certainly, it is a usable means of comparing a car's acceleration in that a figure of 5 seconds indicates a car that is way more accelerative than one that does it in 10, and the 5 second car has more potential to be fast / sporty overall.
What I am getting to is this. With electrification, mundane looking saloons are in a very few years getting figures that are lower than those of ICE hypercars. Which will all shortly follow and emulate.
When the figures start getting low, every 10th of a second demands more extreme measures, due to the law of diminishing returns - tons more power, traction, weight reduction. But that 10th of a second will not even register with the average human being.
For a road going vehicle, of reasonable practicality (anything with at least 2 seats and legally / realistically drivable on the road) we seem to be awfully close to the limits of physics already, and what's left on the table is not a very meaningful advancement.
So - are we close to a time when anything moderately sporty will by default do 60 in a nominal 2 seconds, and no-one gives a damn any more? Just like no-one really cares that commercial aircraft, just buses in the sky, do 600mph?
What I am getting to is this. With electrification, mundane looking saloons are in a very few years getting figures that are lower than those of ICE hypercars. Which will all shortly follow and emulate.
When the figures start getting low, every 10th of a second demands more extreme measures, due to the law of diminishing returns - tons more power, traction, weight reduction. But that 10th of a second will not even register with the average human being.
For a road going vehicle, of reasonable practicality (anything with at least 2 seats and legally / realistically drivable on the road) we seem to be awfully close to the limits of physics already, and what's left on the table is not a very meaningful advancement.
So - are we close to a time when anything moderately sporty will by default do 60 in a nominal 2 seconds, and no-one gives a damn any more? Just like no-one really cares that commercial aircraft, just buses in the sky, do 600mph?
i would say 95% of buyers couldnt give a monkeys about 0-60 as long as the car keeps up with traffic comfortably they just don't care
0-60 is a w
k measurement, standing qtr is far more representative of real world performance
anything sub 4 seconds is utterly pointless as a daily driver
0-60 is a w
k measurement, standing qtr is far more representative of real world performance anything sub 4 seconds is utterly pointless as a daily driver
ashenfie said:
It's always been a completely meaningless figure, all you need to do is let your tyres down a little or purchase softer tyres and woopy. it quicker. Further two cars with the same 0-60 time may both reach 60 at the same time, but one car be in front of the other!
Well it does not seem to be meaningless to you as you seem to have a great interest in how it could be improved. And almost anyone contemplating a fast car (other than celebrities simply buying into the lifestyle) will have an interest in the raw figure, too, all those who say they don't, well...I think 0-60 became meaningless to the huge majority of people when the huge majority of mainstream cars dipped under about 10-12 seconds. Back in the days when a "slow" car would take 30 seconds to get to 60 and a "brisk" one would take 15, it had some real meaning to normal drivers.
I think car enthusiasts will always have an interest in geeky stats, however meaningless.
My favoured performance metric for comparing cars has always been power to weight ratio. In my experience two randomly chosen 150bhp/tonne cars will generally feel more similar to each other on the road than two randomly chosen cars with 7 second 0-60 times.
I think car enthusiasts will always have an interest in geeky stats, however meaningless.
My favoured performance metric for comparing cars has always been power to weight ratio. In my experience two randomly chosen 150bhp/tonne cars will generally feel more similar to each other on the road than two randomly chosen cars with 7 second 0-60 times.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 1st February 13:15
GetCarter said:
As mentioned. Always completely pointless.
50-70 is what to look at, or 60-0.
Out of interest I have had 2 cars sub 3 seconds to 60 and it was the braking that was far more important.
So it's not "pointless" because you know the figures. That is what I mean. If they meant nothing you would not know them just like you don't know the torque values for the conrod big ends on those cars.50-70 is what to look at, or 60-0.
Out of interest I have had 2 cars sub 3 seconds to 60 and it was the braking that was far more important.
I am asking whether in future the 0-60 will become a totally standard figure that no one really even knows unless it is seriously sub-par.
For general driving I find the biggest difference is not what the car will do from a standstill in launch mode with everything set to sport ultra, but the situation where you're loping along at an ordinary pace and find yourself needing to do an interval like 30-60 as quickly as possible. (Think queue of cars overtaking a tractor, someone on a motorway doing 40 in the middle lane with a busy overtaking lane, all those general day-to-day things where the ability to have one quick blast of acceleration and back to normal makes life much less stressful)
There's some nominally quite slow cars where it's one quick shift through a compliant manual box and you're on cam ready to go, and some fast ones where it takes a shocking amount of time for the various systems to register that there's been a big throttle application, for the autobox to decide on an appropriate gear, a turbo to spool up and then you're finally going.
Sort of like the old 30-70 through gears measurement, but starting off in comfort mode after 2 miles of steady state driving...
There's some nominally quite slow cars where it's one quick shift through a compliant manual box and you're on cam ready to go, and some fast ones where it takes a shocking amount of time for the various systems to register that there's been a big throttle application, for the autobox to decide on an appropriate gear, a turbo to spool up and then you're finally going.
Sort of like the old 30-70 through gears measurement, but starting off in comfort mode after 2 miles of steady state driving...
996TT02 said:
Before you jump in - I am not inferring that 0-60 is all there is to evaluate a car's performance, or that it is even of crucial importance - but certainly, it is a usable means of comparing a car's acceleration in that a figure of 5 seconds indicates a car that is way more accelerative than one that does it in 10, and the 5 second car has more potential to be fast / sporty overall.
What I am getting to is this. With electrification, mundane looking saloons are in a very few years getting figures that are lower than those of ICE hypercars. Which will all shortly follow and emulate.
When the figures start getting low, every 10th of a second demands more extreme measures, due to the law of diminishing returns - tons more power, traction, weight reduction. But that 10th of a second will not even register with the average human being.
For a road going vehicle, of reasonable practicality (anything with at least 2 seats and legally / realistically drivable on the road) we seem to be awfully close to the limits of physics already, and what's left on the table is not a very meaningful advancement.
So - are we close to a time when anything moderately sporty will by default do 60 in a nominal 2 seconds, and no-one gives a damn any more? Just like no-one really cares that commercial aircraft, just buses in the sky, do 600mph?
tbh, for anything under 5 sec 0-60mph, it hasn't had any real meaning for decades.What I am getting to is this. With electrification, mundane looking saloons are in a very few years getting figures that are lower than those of ICE hypercars. Which will all shortly follow and emulate.
When the figures start getting low, every 10th of a second demands more extreme measures, due to the law of diminishing returns - tons more power, traction, weight reduction. But that 10th of a second will not even register with the average human being.
For a road going vehicle, of reasonable practicality (anything with at least 2 seats and legally / realistically drivable on the road) we seem to be awfully close to the limits of physics already, and what's left on the table is not a very meaningful advancement.
So - are we close to a time when anything moderately sporty will by default do 60 in a nominal 2 seconds, and no-one gives a damn any more? Just like no-one really cares that commercial aircraft, just buses in the sky, do 600mph?
Surface, prep, driver, altitude, location all massively impact the figure.
Dave Hedgehog said:
i would say 95% of buyers couldnt give a monkeys about 0-60 as long as the car keeps up with traffic comfortably they just don't care
0-60 is a wk measurement, standing qtr is far more representative of real world performance
anything sub 4 seconds is utterly pointless as a daily driver
As if anyone outside of the USA knows/cares about the standing quarter mile ( most folk couldn't even judge what 403 metres looks like from behind the wheel). 0-60 is a w
k measurement, standing qtr is far more representative of real world performance anything sub 4 seconds is utterly pointless as a daily driver
"anything sub 4 seconds is utterly pointless as a daily driver" ? WTF is that supposed to mean? Does every drive include full on launches at every junction? Do all supercar owners let rip all the time ? What nonsense.
I suspect most people (let's say non car enthusiasts) care about is how easily they can join a DC or Motorway and merge into traffic - and mid range acceleration for overtaking. So 50-70 of greater value for many drivers as a statistic.
But even that is daft when you think a greater proportion of car drivers don't even test drive their car before purchase, the performance is a surprise to them in some cases.
It might actually become meaningful where it was pretty useless before. Sure, a 5 second car is quicker than a 10 second car, but the difference between a 5 and a 6 in the real world doesn't usually matter.
In 4wd EVs all with effectively permanent launch control, those differences might start to matter in real life.
In 4wd EVs all with effectively permanent launch control, those differences might start to matter in real life.
996TT02 said:
GetCarter said:
As mentioned. Always completely pointless.
50-70 is what to look at, or 60-0.
Out of interest I have had 2 cars sub 3 seconds to 60 and it was the braking that was far more important.
So it's not "pointless" because you know the figures. That is what I mean. If they meant nothing you would not know them just like you don't know the torque values for the conrod big ends on those cars.50-70 is what to look at, or 60-0.
Out of interest I have had 2 cars sub 3 seconds to 60 and it was the braking that was far more important.
I am asking whether in future the 0-60 will become a totally standard figure that no one really even knows unless it is seriously sub-par.
My current car has (so they say) 640 torques and 404 BHP - it means little as the car is too tall and heavy to make proper use of said power. It's turning and braking that makes a car swift on the road. Ask any racing driver.
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 1st February 13:35
I've always thought that 0-100 mph was a better indicator of actual performance.
0-60 was a benchmark figure that could be easily influenced by gearing length to achieve a decent time.
My 2.8i Capri could manage well over 70 mph in second gear and 7.9 seconds to 60 but 100 mph took it about 25.
Comparing that to a lot of 'older' modern diesels that can manage sub 6.5 seconds and sub 15 respectively.
0-60 was a benchmark figure that could be easily influenced by gearing length to achieve a decent time.
My 2.8i Capri could manage well over 70 mph in second gear and 7.9 seconds to 60 but 100 mph took it about 25.
Comparing that to a lot of 'older' modern diesels that can manage sub 6.5 seconds and sub 15 respectively.
I'd argue that it stopped being relevant at least 20 years ago.
0-60 is massively biased towards AWD cars, and to a lesser extent RWD cars, and isn't a real world reflection of performance.
Tyre technology has also moved on in leaps and bounds in that time too, as have traction control systems.
Whilst the RS3 and Golf R gang will look to use 0-60 as their benchmark measure to prove that their cars are as fast as RWD supercars, and superior to a Megane RS or Cayman, the real world truth is a completely different story.
"..... but ...... but ...... but ...... what if its raining and the road is the B546543456 in some unknown depths of the Scottish Highlands ..... ???", they'll come back with.
News flash! That's irrelevant too!
That said, I was quite envious of my friends RS4 on our way back from Caffeine and Machine on NYE, as we chased along in my M3 in hammering rain hovering just above zero.
0-60 is massively biased towards AWD cars, and to a lesser extent RWD cars, and isn't a real world reflection of performance.
Tyre technology has also moved on in leaps and bounds in that time too, as have traction control systems.
Whilst the RS3 and Golf R gang will look to use 0-60 as their benchmark measure to prove that their cars are as fast as RWD supercars, and superior to a Megane RS or Cayman, the real world truth is a completely different story.
"..... but ...... but ...... but ...... what if its raining and the road is the B546543456 in some unknown depths of the Scottish Highlands ..... ???", they'll come back with.
News flash! That's irrelevant too!
That said, I was quite envious of my friends RS4 on our way back from Caffeine and Machine on NYE, as we chased along in my M3 in hammering rain hovering just above zero.
mat205125 said:
"..... but ...... but ...... but ...... what if its raining and the road is the B546543456 in some unknown depths of the Scottish Highlands ..... ???", they'll come back with.
News flash! That's irrelevant too!
I only say this because it winds people up.News flash! That's irrelevant too!
"Trust me mate, I'd gap you on the Struie"
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff