This is a question that I've always had. Why do all car's acceleration performance say "it does 0 - 60 in XX seconds". What is so special about the 60 MPH mark?
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
You need some benchmark to have apples to apples comparisons. A dead stop to around the speed limit is a pretty decent one to use. 0-60 time gives you a decent feel for how fast a car is. Real car geeks will want to know about things like 0-30 and 30-50 times as well to see exactly where the performance is.
The other major benchmark is 1/4 mile time which is even less indicative of on-street performance
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
In addition to that, what really gets your gums going is when you break down the car's weight ratio (how heavy the front is vs the rear) and whether you're talking FWD, RWD, AWD, 4X4, rear locking diff...
Oh, wait, 0-60. Yeah, just a standard, easy to understand (and market!) benchmark.
Like "How many points does that video card represent in 3DMark?"
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
This varies by car and there is no optimum speed. The faster you go the more you fight the air around you and mother nature slows you down.
Mmmm... Cocks... on
0
Options
MetalbourneInside a cluster b personalityRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
This varies by car and there is no optimum speed. The faster you go the more you fight the air around you and mother nature slows you down.
I think we agree here, but just to be sure...you're saying there IS an optimum speed for every vehicle, it just depends on the car right? Cause that's how it works.
There's a reason the national speed limit was 55 back in the gas crisis days. Most vehicles were most efficient at 55.
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
That actually would depend on how streamlined the car is. If this is the rule of thumb then I would expect that most cars hover around that number.
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
This varies by car and there is no optimum speed. The faster you go the more you fight the air around you and mother nature slows you down.
I think we agree here, but just to be sure...you're saying there IS an optimum speed for every vehicle, it just depends on the car right? Cause that's how it works.
There's a reason the national speed limit was 55 back in the gas crisis days. Most vehicles were most efficient at 55.
What I mean is if you graphed it, there would just basically be a slope.
You'd get better gas mileage going slower no matter what.
It's just less worth it. Optimum speed depends on how much your time is worth.
I'm not sure there's any great relevance, but 60 MPH is, as I understand it, the optimum speed at which to drive in relation to aerodynamics so as to maximize efficient fuel consumption.
This varies by car and there is no optimum speed. The faster you go the more you fight the air around you and mother nature slows you down.
I think we agree here, but just to be sure...you're saying there IS an optimum speed for every vehicle, it just depends on the car right? Cause that's how it works.
There's a reason the national speed limit was 55 back in the gas crisis days. Most vehicles were most efficient at 55.
What I mean is if you graphed it, there would just basically be a slope. You'd get better gas mileage going slower no matter what.
It's just less worth it. Optimum speed depends on how much your time is worth.
No, because if you're going slower then you cover fewer miles, and mileage is distance per quantity of gas.
Smug Duckling on
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited September 2010
Hokay guys. You're not going to debate that here.
ceres on
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
It's rarely stated anywhere so I don't think there is anything that is normal. The figure could be G-force, time, distance all of those really tells the same story.
Lately I've been looking at miles per gallon and curb to curb in feet much more than 0-60 in cars.
Sigh.
Reading car magazine/websites about a certain car can provide you with a remarkable amount of information like that though. Stuff that seems trivial to someone who is non-interested but is pretty awesome if you dig cars.
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile. With proper gearing it would be possible to beat a stock geared veyron in an entire mile.
Honestly 0-60 is so easy to 'game' nowdays with things like launch control and electronics that it's pretty much meaningless on high end cars.
For example, a first year GT-R had an automated launch control system which was taken out later due to reliability issues. The later years get 0-60 times literally half a second slower. Will there be any difference at all in any realistic driving or non-drag race track performance between a GT-R with and without launch control? No.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile.
Dunno about that, maybe with modified gearing? The McLaren F1 is a lot lighter than the Bugatti, but the Bugatti has about 400 horsepower more and all-wheel drive.
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile.
Dunno about that, maybe with modified gearing? The McLaren F1 is a lot lighter than the Bugatti, but the Bugatti has about 400 horsepower more and all-wheel drive.
With proper gearing it would be possible to beat a stock geared veyron in an entire mile.
I doubt that very strongly. Very strongly indeed...
Top Gear had a clip where they raced a McLaren F1 against a Bugatti Veyron in a mile.
For the first half of the race the McLaren walked away from the Veyron like it was just any other car. After that though, the Veyron caught up and passed it. It was fairly close though.
That and the fact that cars is an European invention.
PS. Damn wiki - I knew this one before I read it there :-(
Oh, and as a car geek I also want to know to 60 to 0 time and the weight of the car.
Isn't 60-0 normally rated in feet?
In addition to that, what really gets your gums going is when you break down the car's weight ratio (how heavy the front is vs the rear) and whether you're talking FWD, RWD, AWD, 4X4, rear locking diff...
Oh, wait, 0-60. Yeah, just a standard, easy to understand (and market!) benchmark.
Like "How many points does that video card represent in 3DMark?"
It's rarely stated anywhere so I don't think there is anything that is normal. The figure could be G-force, time, distance all of those really tells the same story.
I hate that the mags test braking differently - Car and Driver is from 70-0, Motortrend from 60-0.
My favorite is always the time-and-distance from 0-100-0
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile.
Dunno about that, maybe with modified gearing? The McLaren F1 is a lot lighter than the Bugatti, but the Bugatti has about 400 horsepower more and all-wheel drive.
With proper gearing it would be possible to beat a stock geared veyron in an entire mile.
I doubt that very strongly. Very strongly indeed...
Top Gear had a clip where they raced a McLaren F1 against a Bugatti Veyron in a mile.
For the first half of the race the McLaren walked away from the Veyron like it was just any other car. After that though, the Veyron caught up and passed it. It was fairly close though.
The reason it lost was because it ran out it's power band. Its not meant to go as fast as the Veyron, that doesn't mean it cant.
So if you put in another gear that extended the power band it is quite possible that i would indeed beat the veyron in a mile. (and use less gas)
I don't necessarily look at 0-60 that much anymore because 1/4 is more important. Sure, you can have 0-60 in 5.5 sec...but what's your 1/4 mile run? Also, 60 ft time.
My car easily breaks 5 second 0-60, but it only runs a 13.1 in the 1/4. Take a Vette, 0-60 in the same range, but those fuckers easily beat me in the 1/4.
LeCaustic on
Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
0-60 is 0-60 because what matters to some car guys is how quickly you can embarrass that punk at the lights. Gun it up to the speed limit, and as long as you don't spin the tyres or exceed the speed limit, what are the police gonna ticket you for? 60 years ago, nothing, that's what.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile.
Dunno about that, maybe with modified gearing? The McLaren F1 is a lot lighter than the Bugatti, but the Bugatti has about 400 horsepower more and all-wheel drive.
With proper gearing it would be possible to beat a stock geared veyron in an entire mile.
I doubt that very strongly. Very strongly indeed...
Top Gear had a clip where they raced a McLaren F1 against a Bugatti Veyron in a mile.
For the first half of the race the McLaren walked away from the Veyron like it was just any other car. After that though, the Veyron caught up and passed it. It was fairly close though.
The reason it lost was because it ran out it's power band. Its not meant to go as fast as the Veyron, that doesn't mean it cant.
So if you put in another gear that extended the power band it is quite possible that i would indeed beat the veyron in a mile. (and use less gas)
Might I remind you that the regular Veyron does 0-300 in 15 seconds...
Once you get above a certain speed in any car, modifying the gearing will not allow you to achieve a higher top speed.
That speed is totally dependant on the cars aerodynamics.
If you want to go faster than the cars terminal speed, either drop it out of an aeroplane, or add more horsepower.
To raise the Veyron Supersports top speed higher than the standard Veyron by a measly 22.5 km/h required approximately two hundred extra horsepower in addition to re-fettling of the cars aero package.
To increase the cars top speed by approximately 5% required a 20% increase in power, notwithstanding the aero tweaks to reduce drag...
Posts
Basically just something a bunch of journalists agreed on back in the day
PSN - MicroChrist
I'm too fuckin' poor to play
WordsWFriends - zeewoot
Edit: and some insight into the stellar google fu required... "why 0 to 60" is your search term.
The other major benchmark is 1/4 mile time which is even less indicative of on-street performance
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It sure does.
It is really cool.
That's important too.
That and the fact that cars is an European invention.
PS. Damn wiki - I knew this one before I read it there :-(
Oh, and as a car geek I also want to know to 60 to 0 time and the weight of the car.
Isn't 60-0 normally rated in feet?
Oh, wait, 0-60. Yeah, just a standard, easy to understand (and market!) benchmark.
Like "How many points does that video card represent in 3DMark?"
Or dollars. Depending.
I think we agree here, but just to be sure...you're saying there IS an optimum speed for every vehicle, it just depends on the car right? Cause that's how it works.
There's a reason the national speed limit was 55 back in the gas crisis days. Most vehicles were most efficient at 55.
That actually would depend on how streamlined the car is. If this is the rule of thumb then I would expect that most cars hover around that number.
You'd get better gas mileage going slower no matter what.
It's just less worth it. Optimum speed depends on how much your time is worth.
No, because if you're going slower then you cover fewer miles, and mileage is distance per quantity of gas.
Nowadays?
Reckless driving, public endangerment, unnecessarily violent acceleration (yep, a mate got ticketed for that, serves him right though, who races on the street?) etc. etc.
With the really big hitters though, what matters is 0-1000 metres - when you're a millionaire and comparing two cars that both do 0-100 in under four seconds (a Veyron does it in 2.5!!), 60 miles an hour ain't shit.
Pfft, a Caterham R500 does it for about the same and for only $30k
Which I'm sure is very comparable.
Yes but a Caterham 500 is a fucking horrible car to drive anywhere but a racetrack. Also it can't do 300, nevermind 400 km/h...
Very true! Which is why it's important to consider more than just the 0-60 time when looking at supercars
It's rarely stated anywhere so I don't think there is anything that is normal. The figure could be G-force, time, distance all of those really tells the same story.
Sigh.
Reading car magazine/websites about a certain car can provide you with a remarkable amount of information like that though. Stuff that seems trivial to someone who is non-interested but is pretty awesome if you dig cars.
especially because a Mclaren f1 beats a veyron in a 1/4 mile. With proper gearing it would be possible to beat a stock geared veyron in an entire mile.
For example, a first year GT-R had an automated launch control system which was taken out later due to reliability issues. The later years get 0-60 times literally half a second slower. Will there be any difference at all in any realistic driving or non-drag race track performance between a GT-R with and without launch control? No.
Dunno about that, maybe with modified gearing? The McLaren F1 is a lot lighter than the Bugatti, but the Bugatti has about 400 horsepower more and all-wheel drive.
I doubt that very strongly. Very strongly indeed...
Top Gear had a clip where they raced a McLaren F1 against a Bugatti Veyron in a mile.
For the first half of the race the McLaren walked away from the Veyron like it was just any other car. After that though, the Veyron caught up and passed it. It was fairly close though.
In addition to that, what really gets your gums going is when you break down the car's weight ratio (how heavy the front is vs the rear) and whether you're talking FWD, RWD, AWD, 4X4, rear locking diff...
Oh, wait, 0-60. Yeah, just a standard, easy to understand (and market!) benchmark.
Like "How many points does that video card represent in 3DMark?"
download ipad books
I hate that the mags test braking differently - Car and Driver is from 70-0, Motortrend from 60-0.
My favorite is always the time-and-distance from 0-100-0
The reason it lost was because it ran out it's power band. Its not meant to go as fast as the Veyron, that doesn't mean it cant.
So if you put in another gear that extended the power band it is quite possible that i would indeed beat the veyron in a mile. (and use less gas)
My car easily breaks 5 second 0-60, but it only runs a 13.1 in the 1/4. Take a Vette, 0-60 in the same range, but those fuckers easily beat me in the 1/4.
Might I remind you that the regular Veyron does 0-300 in 15 seconds...
Once you get above a certain speed in any car, modifying the gearing will not allow you to achieve a higher top speed.
That speed is totally dependant on the cars aerodynamics.
If you want to go faster than the cars terminal speed, either drop it out of an aeroplane, or add more horsepower.
To raise the Veyron Supersports top speed higher than the standard Veyron by a measly 22.5 km/h required approximately two hundred extra horsepower in addition to re-fettling of the cars aero package.
To increase the cars top speed by approximately 5% required a 20% increase in power, notwithstanding the aero tweaks to reduce drag...