0-60mph in 2.23 seconds

[Brummmie]

Richard D has kindly worked this out for me, using the data from my 10.6 qtr mile time, utilizing my 1.5 60ft time, my car is good for 60mph without changing gear!

[dbv8]

Does this account for the rollout?

[Brummmie]

dbv8 said:

Does this account for the rollout?

Richard!!

[dbv8]

If you just and so staged then you would have an 18 inch run up to the timing beam and the start of the 60 foot.
I think its safe to say we can add a few tenths on to the 2.2 to give my estimate of 2.6

Still....

[APMAUTO]

i had this worked out on my data for my bike on a 7.9/183 run and it came back at 0.88sec to 60mph now my bike's quick but not sure it's that fast?

[pwd95]

So we officially have a TVR that's faster than a Veyron to 60?.......

[RichardD]

Brummmie said:

Richard!!

Sorry was eating and vegetating away from computers .

That run of the software was using a "start time after car moves" of 1.1 ft, so 13.x inches.

Increasing this to 1.5 feet (so 18 inches) knocks the 60mph time down to 2.19 secs!
Reducing it to 6 inches takes the 60mph time to 2.32 secs.
Reducing it to 1.x inches takes it to 2.42 secs.
0 inches give 2.52 secs. This is probably a bit more realistic.

But the other times are now off and so that's more stuff to tinker with to get it back in line.

(Runs away at this point waving his arms in the air shouting "arghhh" like Homer )

[dbv8]

Ive always been good at guesstimating

[Sevenman]

RichardD said:

Increasing this to 1.5 feet (so 18 inches) knocks the 60mph time down to 2.19 secs!
Reducing it to 6 inches takes the 60mph time to 2.32 secs.
Reducing it to 1.x inches takes it to 2.42 secs.
0 inches give 2.52 secs. This is probably a bit more realistic.

I think those adjustment might be going the wrong way.

For a given 60 foot time, the longer the lead-in, the worse the 0-60 mph time if calculated from 60 foot and assuming a constant acceleration.

If the lead-in is zero, then the car starts the 60 foot at 0 mph.

If the lead-in is 18 inches, it starts the 60 foot with some speed and the 60 foot time is reduced (and hence a 0-60 mph time would be inferred to be faster).

I just had a go at creating and solving an equation for this given inputs of 60 foot time, 60 foot distance and lead-in distance to give an acceleration that could be used to calculate a 0-60 mph time.

But the maths went wrong somewhere (ended up as a quadratic equation that gave an odd answer), so I will save it until I am back in work and can use some proper software to help me.

[Chilliman]

You lot are barmy

[RichardD]

Sevenman said:

Stuff

As I understand it, the lead in distance is cheating as it is giving a "0-60" time which is really a 5-60 time or something very similar.

With the one foot lead in distance, the time here is still quicker than a Veyron. Not got a SuperSport in the database to compare against though.

[neal1980]

RichardD said:

As I understand it, the lead in distance is cheating as it is giving a "0-60" time which is really a 5-60 time or something very similar.

With the one foot lead in distance, the time here is still quicker than a Veyron. Not got a SuperSport in the database to compare against though.

Lets stick a Veyron on M/T tyres and see what it does then

Very impressive times.. having watched it the other day the way it fires off the line is WOW!

[dbv8]

Will you be investing in a pair of the MTs Neal?

I ran 1.70 on mine at the pod but think i still have suspension tweaks to improve and still need to get more heat in them in the burnout.
I found this video from the weekend at York. It felt like i was burning out for an age but the video suggests around 6 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR6sYnG__tY

[Brummmie]

dbv8 said:

Will you be investing in a pair of the MTs Neal?

I ran 1.70 on mine at the pod but think i still have suspension tweaks to improve and still need to get more heat in them in the burnout.
I found this video from the weekend at York. It felt like i was burning out for an age but the video suggests around 6 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR6sYnG__tY

More burnout required...
My gauge is when smoke starts coming out through the trans tunnel, via the gear lever!

[RichardD]

neal1980 said:

Lets stick a Veyron on M/T tyres and see what it does then
...

OK, and it still has a slower 60ft time
(It doesn't seem to like launches, being so heavy and also geared for 60+ mph in first gear)

[Brummmie]

RichardD said:

OK, and it still has a slower 60ft time
(It doesn't seem to like launches, being so heavy and also geared for 60+ mph in first gear)

What is the V doing at the 1/8th?
1000hp does alot in the second part of the run i'll bet!?

[dbv8]

4WD is ok for yer scooby turbo nutters etc and helps them get decent launches but when you reach a certain level then most of the weight, if not all of it, is placed at the rear tyres. Not only is Paul getting those MTs very very sticky but must be transferring weight well also.

[RichardD]

Brummmie said:

What is the V doing at the 1/8th?
1000hp does alot in the second part of the run i'll bet!?

112mph after 6.67 secs.

A V would cross the line in 4th. The main advantage imho it has is the ultra rapid gearchanges.

(Oops it still has the MT's on, would you prefer normal tyres ?)

[dbv8]

A quick google on the supersport gave me this

0 - 60 mph 2.4 s
0 - 100 mph 4.9 s
0 - 150 mph 10.2 s
0 - 200 mph 22.2 s
1000 m 18.0 s @ 295 kph
1/4 mile 9.9 s @ 146 mph

[RichardD]

dbv8 said:

A quick google on the supersport gave me this
...
1/4 mile 9.9 s @ 146 mph

A Chim with 700 big healthy horses and a sequential box could beat that .