G force

Author
Discussion

craigw

Original Poster:

12,248 posts

297 months

Friday 5th March 2004
quotequote all
anyone got any idea how many g's a 996TT is pulling under full acceleration in a straight line?

domster

8,431 posts

285 months

Friday 5th March 2004
quotequote all
Probably about 1-1.2g, not much more in sustained acceleration.

Interestingly, any car pulls 1g for a split second when it starts rolling.

If anyone has definite figures I'd love to know. I know of a few cornering g figures but not acceleration or braking.

jeremyc

25,896 posts

299 months

Friday 5th March 2004
quotequote all
Autocar's 0-100-0 test measured decellerative G.

The Noble managed 1.44g

Grey42Cerbie

415 posts

281 months

Friday 5th March 2004
quotequote all
Are any of you guys going to Bruntingthorpe. Maybe you could club together and buy a datalogger and find out. It would be really interesting for the rest of us techno-geeks to find out stuff like that. Especially when still at work dreaming of 5:30...

Steve, 996TT

sprior

96 posts

259 months

Saturday 6th March 2004
quotequote all
domster said:
Interestingly, any car pulls 1g for a split second when it starts rolling.

It's a little bit early for an April fool isn't it?
Even for a fraction of a second, force = mass x acceleration.
Mass is fixed and force is finite, so acceleration can't be 1g if the engine hasn't got the oomph to do it.
I think.....

BCA

8,651 posts

272 months

Saturday 6th March 2004
quotequote all
Craigw - I'll bring an AP22 to Bruntingthorpe if you give me a ride in your Maserati into silly figures...

will bring it anyway, just making sure I have a few rides lined up!! CANT WAIT!!

Its simple to use - I'll get figures sorted for anyone that doesnt mind me passengering...

Harris_I

3,256 posts

274 months

Sunday 7th March 2004
quotequote all
Actually I would have thought that the instantaneous accelerative force from standstill is fairly meaningless since it tends towards infinity anyway.

(Force is proportional to rate of change of momentum and since momentum is zero at standstill and greater than zero instantaneously, force and therefore acceleration is theoretically infinite immediately upon moving.) Anyone still awake?

Edited to say: as per sprior's neat little calculator, sustained 1g acceleration would have to be pretty mind blowing.

>> Edited by Harris_I on Sunday 7th March 11:40

sprior

96 posts

259 months

Monday 8th March 2004
quotequote all
jeremyc said:
Autocar's 0-100-0 test measured decellerative G.

The Noble managed 1.44g



The stoppping distances in the highway code assume 0.67g as the max decelaration for cars, and even then it qualifies it with 'braking system and tires in good order, dry conditions, etc' (or something like that).
1.44g just goes to show how out of date that is - that's less than half the stopping distance that the highway code assumes. Now, maybe, given that speed limits were set when the brakes on cars were little better than pushing your feet onto the tarmac through a hole in the floor, it might be time for a rethink on speed limits?

Assuming that the reaction time of 0.68sec used in the highway code table stays the same, at 1.44g braking, the 30mph stopping distance can be achieved from 44 mph, 50 mph is equivalent to 73 mph, 60mph = 88mph and 70mph = 103mph.
I might try this argument next time I get pulled over....

>> Edited by sprior on Monday 8th March 17:44

domster

8,431 posts

285 months

Monday 8th March 2004
quotequote all
Harris_I said:
Actually I would have thought that the instantaneous accelerative force from standstill is fairly meaningless since it tends towards infinity anyway.

(Force is proportional to rate of change of momentum and since momentum is zero at standstill and greater than zero instantaneously, force and therefore acceleration is theoretically infinite immediately upon moving.) Anyone still awake?

Edited to say: as per sprior's neat little calculator, sustained 1g acceleration would have to be pretty mind blowing.

>> Edited by Harris_I on Sunday 7th March 11:40


I think I meant infinite. Sommat like that. All based on long forgotten hearsay not scientific fact, so you guys are undoubtedly correct. I was fairly sure 1g acceleration was pretty impressive for a road car tho'. Apparently a Radical SR3 can do 2g when cornering...

sprior

96 posts

259 months

Tuesday 9th March 2004
quotequote all
domster said:
All based on long forgotten hearsay not scientific fact
I still think the zero or infinite accel from rest is not true. Accel is the speed difference / time, so there is no difference accelerating from rest than from any other speed (unless you have a very fast car that approaches the speed of light, when relativistic mechanics come into play, or have a really small car of subatomic proportions, when quantum mechanics rule.

goodlife

1,852 posts

274 months

Tuesday 9th March 2004
quotequote all
sprior said:
...unless you have a very fast car that approaches the speed of light
I want one.

cptsideways

13,728 posts

267 months

Tuesday 9th March 2004
quotequote all
I have an AP22 data logger & if anyone is in the North Dorset area & wants a play let me know.

JohnM993C4

27 posts

266 months

Thursday 11th March 2004
quotequote all
sprior said:

I still think the zero or infinite accel from rest is not true.

It isn't. The technical term for that is "b*ll*cks"

On the original question, a RWD car with 60% rear weight bias, tyre friction coefficient of 1.0 and a c of g height of 450mm (probably in the right ballpark for a 996) can initially generate 0.6g (corresponding to weight on the rear wheels), then as the accel causes weight transfer to the rear can accel harder until it reaches a max sustained accel value of 0.75g. With some sticky race tyres on (say a friction coeff of 1.2) that limit would go up to 0.94g. That's a simplified view as the effect of tyre wind-up at launch is ignored, but it gives the right idea.

A 996TT might get above those figures if the fronts could be persuaded to contribute a reasonable amount of traction, but as the slip ratio at the rear needs to be fairly high before the viscous coupling directs much torque to the front it is unlikely to improve more than a little. In any case, the TT only (!) has enough torque to manage those kind of accels in 1st gear, in 2nd the max possible would be about 0.7g.

domster

8,431 posts

285 months

Thursday 11th March 2004
quotequote all
Get you scientific lot! I'm impressed. Shows I know sod all about physics

ninemeister

1,146 posts

273 months

Thursday 11th March 2004
quotequote all
Actually, we had a car that ran a similar power-to-weight ratio as a 993TT that would pull 1.0g from a standing start, which is achieved when you travel the first 64ft in under 2 seconds. The car involved was a 925kg 2.7RS Replica with a 3.5 engine at 260bhp on P Zero C road tyres. In 2nd gear the g drops to 0.7g, 3rd 0.6 and 4th 0.5g. Same car around bends hits 1.35g and 1.2g under braking, our 2-axis G-meter logged the results.
My 993 RS CS pulls only 0.92g in 1st but has recorded
1.45g around bends and 1.5g under braking, thus justifying 25 years of development...


>> Edited by ninemeister on Thursday 11th March 16:25

Melv

4,708 posts

280 months

Thursday 11th March 2004
quotequote all
domster said:
Get you scientific lot! I'm impressed. Shows I know sod all about physics


Or Merkins........

Melv

JohnM993c4

27 posts

266 months

Thursday 11th March 2004
quotequote all
ninemeister said:

My 993 RS CS pulls only 0.92g in 1st but has recorded
1.45g around bends and 1.5g under braking, thus justifying 25 years of development...

Pretty sticky tyres - were those figures with slicks? Sounds like the brake bias is spot on

ninemeister

1,146 posts

273 months

Friday 12th March 2004
quotequote all
...g-force figures recorded on Pirelli P Zero C road/track tyres, hot, on ideal dry track conditions. Pagid Black brake pads help as well.

sprior

96 posts

259 months

Friday 12th March 2004
quotequote all
domster said:
Shows I know sod all about physics


I think you've been put upon here.
After a bit more thought, I think there's something in this...

When the accelerating force is applied, like when taking off from stopped, the force is applied suddenly.
Now, F=ma, so as the rate of change of force is a big number, then the rate of change of acceleration is a big number too (and tends to infinity, the quicker the force is applied).
This may well be where the infinite accel thing came from (even though that is Bowwwguuuus, as 'Tom and Ray' would say).
BTW, the official term for rate of change of acceleration is the 'jerk'.